EaseWeb

Access settings

get_access

Read-onlyIdempotent

The access settings of your presentation: its own level ("open", "public", "private"), the level that counts ("effective_level": a presentation of a project inherits the project's level when that one is stricter), who was given access (and which role), and the pending requests.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`slug`	Yes	The presentation's slug (its address: /movie/<slug>/).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`level`	Yes	open, public or private: the presentation's own level.
`grants`	No
`project_level`	No	The level of its project, if any.
`effective_level`	No	The level that counts (the project's one when stricter).
`pending_requests`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed6 schema fields changedSep 29, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / effective_level

Added value: +{
+  "description": "The level that counts (the project's one when stricter).",
+  "type": "string"
+}

changedOutput schema / properties / level / description

Previous value: -"open, public or private."New value: +"open, public or private: the presentation's own level."

changedOutput schema / properties / pending_requests / items / properties / presentation / description

Previous value: -"Slug of the presentation."New value: +"Slug of the presentation (null: a project)."

changedOutput schema / properties / pending_requests / items / properties / presentation / type
```
Previous value: -"string"New value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
```

addedOutput schema / properties / pending_requests / items / properties / project

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Slug of the project, for access to all of it.",
+  "type": [
+    "string",
+    "null"
+  ]
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / project_level

Added value: +{
+  "description": "The level of its project, if any.",
+  "type": [
+    "string",
+    "null"
+  ]
+}

Changed1 schema field changedSep 28, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "grants": {
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "role": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "since": {
+            "description": "ISO 8601 date and time.",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "user": {
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "level": {
+      "description": "open, public or private.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "pending_requests": {
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "agent": {
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "created_at": {
+            "description": "ISO 8601 date and time.",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "id": {
+            "type": "integer"
+          },
+          "message": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "presentation": {
+            "description": "Slug of the presentation.",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "role": {
+            "description": "view or edit.",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "status": {
+            "description": "pending, approved or declined.",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "title": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "user": {
+            "description": "Who asks.",
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "id",
+          "status"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "level"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedSep 28, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious domain behavior: effective_level inheritance where a presentation in a project inherits the project's level when that one is stricter. That inheritance rule is real value beyond annotations. However it doesn't clarify whether output is a snapshot, or that pending requests are included read-only (vs. the actionable list elsewhere).

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence that is really a field inventory, and it is not front-loaded with the action. It spends its length enumerating return-value fields (which an output schema already covers) rather than stating what the tool does or when to use it.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained in prose; the field enumeration is largely redundant with that schema. The inheritance rule is a useful addition, but the definition still lacks a plain purpose statement and any routing versus siblings, leaving the agent to infer when to call it.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single 'slug' parameter is fully documented in the schema as the presentation's address. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is the baseline-3 case.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description enumerates the fields of the access settings object (own level, effective level, who has access, pending requests) but never states the action plainly: that it retrieves/returns the access settings for a presentation. There is no leading verb like 'Get' or 'Return'. The agent can infer it's a read from the name and annotations, but the sentence itself is a content list rather than a purpose statement.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this vs. siblings like list_access_requests, whoami, request_access, or set_access. An agent cannot tell from the description whether pending requests returned here overlap with list_access_requests, or that set_access is the mutation counterpart. Usage must be inferred entirely.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All EaseWeb tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?