list_access_requests"incoming" (default): requests for access to YOUR presentations (pending ones, or all with include_decided); "outgoing": the requests you (or your agents) sent and their status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| direction | No | "incoming" (default): requests to you; "outgoing": requests you sent. | |
| include_decided | No | Also return approved and declined requests. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| requests | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / properties / requests / items / properties / title / descriptionAdded value: +"Its title; null while you may not see it (a private one you asked for)."Output schema / properties / requests / items / properties / title / typePrevious value: -"string"New value: +[
+ "string",
+ "null"
+]Output schema / properties / requests / items / properties / presentation / descriptionPrevious value: -"Slug of the presentation."New value: +"Slug of the presentation (null: a project)."Output schema / properties / requests / items / properties / presentation / typePrevious value: -"string"New value: +[
+ "string",
+ "null"
+]Output schema / properties / requests / items / properties / projectAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Slug of the project, for access to all of it.",
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+}Input schema / properties / direction / descriptionAdded value: +"\"incoming\" (default): requests to you; \"outgoing\": requests you sent."Input schema / properties / include_decided / descriptionAdded value: +"Also return approved and declined requests."Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "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": [
+ "requests"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the default result set is pending-only, and include_decided widens it to approved/declined, which is the kind of filtering default an agent needs and cannot get from annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two compact clauses, no filler, and the most important distinction (incoming vs outgoing) is front-loaded. The fragment format is terse to the point of being slightly telegraphic, but nothing is wasted.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With an output schema present the description needn't explain return values, and annotations cover safety; the description fills the remaining gap about defaults and mode semantics. It stops short of relating this tool to answer_access_request/request_access, which would make the picture fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented and the baseline is 3. The description largely restates the enum semantics, adding only the emphasis on 'YOUR presentations' and the pending-default behavior for include_decided, which is modest value over the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description never states the operation itself (listing/inspecting access requests); it only elaborates on the direction modes, leaning on the tool name to convey the verb. A reader can infer it enumerates access requests, but the definition starts mid-thought rather than declaring the resource and action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It clarifies the two modes (incoming = requests to your presentations, outgoing = requests you or your agents sent) and when pending-vs-all applies, which is useful implied routing. However, it never points to the related siblings that would be alternatives (answer_access_request, request_access, get_access), so the agent must guess how this differs from those.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.