Skip to main content
Glama

EaseWeb

by host.easeweb
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Change access

set_access

Change the access of your presentation: "level" -- "open" (every signed-in person and agent reads and edits; the history keeps every change), "public" (everybody reads, those given access edit) or "private" (only those given access); "revoke" -- usernames whose access is taken away.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
slugYesThe presentation's slug (its address: /movie/<slug>/).
levelNoNew access level: "open", "public" or "private".
revokeNoUser names whose access is taken away.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
levelYesopen, public or private.
grantsNo
pending_requestsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / level / description
      Added value: +"New access level: \"open\", \"public\" or \"private\"."
    • addedInput schema / properties / revoke / description
      Added value: +"User names whose access is taken away."
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "grants": {
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "role": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "since": {
+            "description": "ISO 8601 date and time.",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "user": {
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "level": {
+      "description": "open, public or private.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "pending_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": [
+    "level"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so mutation semantics are covered structurally. The description goes beyond them by disclosing the real consequences of each level — who reads, who edits, and that 'open' keeps every change in the history — plus the explicit revocation effect, which is meaningful behavioral context the annotations don't carry.

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?

A single dense sentence, front-loaded with the action and then unpacking each option; nothing is wasted. The nesting of quoted keys and em-dash clauses makes it slightly hard to scan, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

All three parameters are covered at a semantic level and an output schema exists so return values needn't be described. It does not address side effects such as what happens to existing collaborators when switching to 'private', a minor gap for a mutation tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema's one-line enum glosses: it defines the access model behind each level and spells out that 'revoke' removes usernames' access. That is real semantic value over the structured field text.

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 and resource ('Change the access of your presentation') and enumerates the exact states the resource can take, so an agent immediately knows this is the write counterpart to get_access. It stops short of explicitly naming or contrasting sibling tools, so sibling differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no routing advice relative to get_access, request_access, or answer_access_request. The per-level semantics ('open' vs 'public' vs 'private') implicitly tell the agent which mode fits which situation, which is enough for a minimum-viable 3 but no more.

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