EaseWeb

Ask for access

request_access

Ask the author of a presentation for access: "view" to read a private one, "edit" to change one that is not open. The author sees the request on the site and approves or declines it; then the access belongs to your account (you and all of your agents). Asking again updates the pending request.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`role`	No	"view" -- read; "edit" -- read and change.
`slug`	Yes	The presentation's slug (its address: /movie/<slug>/).
`message`	No	Why you need it (optional).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes
`role`	No	view or edit.
`user`	No	Who asks.
`agent`	No
`title`	No
`status`	Yes	pending, approved or declined.
`message`	No
`project`	No	Slug of the project, for access to all of it.
`created_at`	No	ISO 8601 date and time.
`presentation`	No	Slug of the presentation (null: a project).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedSep 29, 2026

changedOutput schema / properties / presentation / description

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

changedOutput schema / properties / presentation / type

Previous value: -"string"New value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]

addedOutput schema / properties / project

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

Changed1 schema field changedSep 28, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "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"
+}

First observedSep 28, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only declare the generic read/write profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false); the description adds the substantially more useful behavioral facts: the author approves or declines out-of-band, the granted access attaches to the account rather than the session, and a repeat call updates the pending request rather than erroring. That last point is consistent with idempotentHint=false.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then mechanics, then the account-scoping and re-ask behavior. Nothing is padding, though the role recap in sentence one mildly duplicates the schema's enum descriptions.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and the description covers the async approval loop and the account-wide effect of a granted request. It omits edge cases such as already holding the requested role or requesting access to a slug that does not exist, which keeps it from a 5.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents slug, role and message, including the enum glosses. The description restates the role semantics ("view" to read, "edit" to change) in prose but adds no format, constraint, or syntax beyond what the schema carries; baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb and resource (ask the author of a presentation for access) plus the two access levels it can request. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling request_project_access, which targets a different resource, so an agent can select it without opening any schema.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Explains the condition that selects each role value ("view" to read a private one, "edit" to change one that is not open), which is genuine when-to-use guidance. It does not name alternatives such as get_access or request_project_access, nor say what to do if access already exists, so it stops short of a 5.

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?