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
`created_at`	No	ISO 8601 date and time.
`presentation`	No	Slug of the presentation.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

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

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), the description discloses the human-in-the-loop approval flow, that granted access propagates to the whole account including all agents, and that re-asking updates rather than duplicates the pending request. These are non-obvious behavioral traits an agent needs.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then role semantics, then the approval and idempotency behavior. No filler sentences.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers the action, role meaning, approval lifecycle, and repeat-call behavior. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly 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% and the role enum is already documented in the schema, so the description's restatement of 'view'/'edit' adds little. Baseline 3 is appropriate; the semantic link from 'edit' to 'not open' presentations is a small bonus but not enough to justify a 4.

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 (request access to a presentation) and immediately scopes it to private/open presentations. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like get_access, set_access, and answer_access_request, which handle reading, granting, and responding rather than asking.

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 when each role applies ('view' to read a private one, 'edit' to change one that is not open), which is real usage guidance. It does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., get_access when you already have access), so it stops short of full when-not guidance.

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?