Dove

Ask for more access

request_access

Request temporary or permanent mailbox access rights from the owner for read, draft, organize, delete, or send actions; permissions take effect only after approval.

Instructions

Ask the owner for lasting or temporary rights on mailboxes of this project (to have one draft sent, use request_send instead): read, draft, organize, delete, send or a preset (reader, drafter, assistant, full), e.g. actions "read,draft". With duration_minutes (1 to 43200, 30 days) the rights end on their own; without it the request is for a permanent grant. Nothing changes until the owner approves; the owner may shorten the time or leave out mailboxes. The owner tells you the mailbox alias; there is no list of mailboxes you could ask for. An approved temporary request counts as open until its rights end. Follow the outcome with list_requests.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "grants": "<grants>"
    },
    "name": "request_access"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`note`	No	Short note for the owner (why you need it).
`grants`	Yes	Mailboxes and the rights asked for on each.
`duration_minutes`	No	How long the rights should last. Omit to ask for a permanent grant.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`grants`	No
`status`	No
`request_id`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedNov 14, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / grants / description
```
Added value: +"Mailboxes and the rights asked for on each."
```
First observedv0.11.0Nov 14, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare this is not read-only and not destructive but leave the approval semantics unexplained; the description fills that gap with 'Nothing changes until the owner approves', the owner's power to shorten duration or drop mailboxes, and the rule that an approved temporary request stays open until rights expire. The only thing not covered is the response shape, which the output schema already handles.

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?

Purpose and the sibling exclusion are front-loaded in the first clause, and nearly every sentence carries a distinct fact (approval gate, duration semantics, alias constraint, follow-up). It is a dense single paragraph with stacked parentheticals and a mid-sentence example that interrupt scanning, which keeps it just short of 5.

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?

For a three-parameter mutation with an output schema and partial annotation coverage, the description supplies everything an agent needs: who approves, what is mutable by the approver, how temporary vs permanent is expressed, that mailboxes cannot be enumerated, and how to check the outcome. Nothing material is left to inference.

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 real meaning: it enumerates the presets (reader, drafter, assistant, full) that the free-text 'actions' field accepts, gives a format example ('read,draft'), and restates the duration bounds and the permanent-grant default. It also warns that 'account' must be an alias the owner named because no mailbox list is discoverable.

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 owner ... for lasting or temporary rights on mailboxes of this project') and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling 'request_send' by naming the case that belongs there instead. An agent can route between access requests and send requests without opening either schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly gives the alternative and the condition that selects it ('to have one draft sent, use request_send instead'), plus the fork between temporary (duration_minutes) and permanent (omit it) requests. It also names the follow-up tool ('Follow the outcome with list_requests') and the prerequisite that the owner supplies the mailbox alias.

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