Request access to a space you don't own by submitting a request with your reason and desired rights. The owner reviews and approves or denies your pending request.
Request a grant on a space you do not own (public or unlisted). Records a pending request the space owner can approve or deny.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| space | No | ||
| reason | No | ||
| rights | No | ||
| sessionId | No | ||
| persistenceMode | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it records a pending request the owner can approve or deny, which is a core behavioral outcome. However, it does not mention side effects like duplicate requests, permission requirements, or edge cases (e.g., already having access). This is minimal but not misleading.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and scope. There is no redundancy or irrelevant content, making it highly concise and readable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 5 undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is insufficient. It omits parameter meanings, return values, error scenarios, and behavioral edge cases. An agent would likely need external context to call it correctly, especially for the optional parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema lists 5 parameters (space, reason, rights, sessionId, persistenceMode) with no descriptions and 0% schema coverage, and the description explains none of them. It doesn't clarify what 'space' refers to, what 'rights' expects, or how 'reason' is used. The description does not compensate for the schema gap at all.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('request a grant') and the resource ('a space you do not own'), and distinguishes it from ownership-based tools like grant or approve_request by specifying 'public or unlisted' spaces. This is specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It gives a clear precondition ('you do not own', 'public or unlisted') that indicates when to use the tool, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. The context is useful but lacks explicit routing to sibling tools like grant or check_rights.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.