Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

EaseWeb

by host.easeweb
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Ask for access to a project

request_project_access

Ask the author of a project for access to all of it: "view" to read its private presentations, "edit" to change them. Approved access counts for every presentation of the project, also the ones added later.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
roleNo"view" -- read; "edit" -- read and change.
messageNoWhy you need it (optional).
projectYesThe project's slug (its address: /project/<slug>/).

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes
roleNoview or edit.
userNoWho asks.
agentNo
titleNoIts title; null while you may not see it (a private one you asked for).
statusYespending, approved or declined.
messageNo
projectNoSlug of the project, for access to all of it.
created_atNoISO 8601 date and time.
presentationNoSlug of the presentation (null: a project).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • 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"
+]
  2. Added

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world. The description adds real context beyond them: the request goes to the author and approval propagates to every presentation in the project, including ones added later. It does not say whether repeat calls re-notify the author or what state the request starts in.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the scope guarantee tacked on where it matters. No filler, no repetition of the tool title.

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?

Output schema exists and annotations cover safety, so the description need not explain return values. It is nearly complete for a 3-param mutation; the only omission is post-call behavior on repeated requests and how this differs from the per-presentation request_access sibling.

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 enum values are already documented in the schema, so the description only restates what 'view' and 'edit' mean. Baseline 3 applies; no additional syntax or edge-case guidance (e.g., what default role is used when role is omitted) is offered.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (ask for access to a project) and defines the two roles inline. The scope phrase 'all of it... counts for every presentation of the project' implicitly separates it from the sibling request_access, but it never names that alternative explicitly.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer you call this when you lack access to a project, but there is no statement of when to prefer it over request_access, what happens if access already exists, or what prerequisites (e.g., being able to see the project slug) apply.

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

All EaseWeb toolsInspect
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