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

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

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes
`role`	No	view or edit.
`user`	No	Who asks.
`agent`	No
`title`	No	Its title; null while you may not see it (a private one you asked for).
`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.

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 23, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / title / description

Added value: +"Its title; null while you may not see it (a private one you asked for)."

changedOutput schema / properties / title / type

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

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

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations, it explains the approval workflow: the author sees and approves or declines the request, access attaches to the account including all agents, and asking again updates the pending request. These are important behavioral details not captured by the annotations.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is front-loaded with the purpose and then sequentially explains roles, approval flow, account scope, and repeat behavior. It is compact and every sentence contributes useful information.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the full schema descriptions, annotations, and output schema, the description supplies the missing workflow context: pending approval, account-level access, and behavior when asking again. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 explains slug, role, and message. The description reinforces the role meanings but adds little parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description states a specific verb and resource: requesting access to a presentation, with the two possible roles. It distinguishes presentation access from project access by naming the resource explicitly, though it does not name the sibling tool request_project_access.

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?

It gives clear usage conditions: use "view" to read a private presentation and "edit" to change one that is not open. It does not explicitly cover when to use this versus set_access, get_access, or request_project_access, but the main scenario is clear.

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?