Skip to main content
Glama

client_access_request_email

Draft professional emails to request client system access, with routes for initial request, follow-up, or partial workaround. Clearly state what access is needed and why.

Instructions

Write the email requesting access to client systems, tools, platforms, or repositories needed to start or continue work. For when you need logins, permissions, API keys, or repository invitations from the client side. Three routes: initial_request (default — first-time ask for specific access required to kick off or progress the project; tone is clear and practical, lists exactly what's needed and why), follow_up (chasing outstanding access that was promised or discussed but hasn't arrived yet — tone is patient but firm, reiterates the blocker clearly), partial_workaround (you've found a temporary workaround but still need full access eventually — explains what you've done, what you still need, and the impact of the delay). Distinct from client_material_chase_email (chasing files or content, not system access) and project_restart_email (restarting stalled work after a break). Does not count against your monthly draft limit. Required: client_name, access_needed (what you need — e.g. 'admin access to the WordPress dashboard', 'an invitation to the GitHub repo', 'read access to Google Analytics'). Optional: project_name, access_reason (why you need it — e.g. 'to set up the staging environment', 'to start the content migration'), workaround_description (for partial_workaround route — what you've done in the interim), deadline (when you need access by — e.g. 'by end of week', 'before Thursday's call'), route ('initial_request' | 'follow_up' | 'partial_workaround' — default initial_request), your_name.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
client_nameYesClient first name
access_neededYesWhat you need access to — e.g. 'admin access to the WordPress dashboard', 'an invitation to the GitHub repo', 'read access to Google Analytics', 'the Figma project files', 'your hosting control panel'. Required.
project_nameNoOptional: name of the project — e.g. 'the Westbrook website', 'your brand identity', 'the app build'.
access_reasonNoOptional: why you need this access — e.g. 'to set up the staging environment', 'to start the content migration', 'to connect the analytics integration'. Makes the request feel purposeful, not administrative.
workaround_descriptionNoFor partial_workaround route: what you've done in the interim — e.g. 'I've been working from the exported files you shared', 'I've set up a temporary admin account to keep things moving'. Explains what's been done so far.
deadlineNoOptional: when you need access by — e.g. 'by end of week', 'before Thursday's call', 'in the next day or two'. Adds urgency without being pushy.
routeNoinitial_request (default) — first-time ask, clear and practical; follow_up — chasing outstanding access, patient but firm; partial_workaround — you've found a temp fix but still need full access.
your_nameNoOptional: your name for the sign-off
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the three routes with different tones, that it does not count against monthly draft limit, and explains the purpose of each parameter. However, it does not explicitly state that it only generates the email text and does not send it, which is a minor gap.

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?

The description is well-structured: starts with main purpose, then lists routes, differentiation, and parameter details. It is informative but not overly verbose. Could be slightly more concise, but front-loads key information effectively.

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 8 parameters, 2 required, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers all necessary aspects: explains the three routes, gives examples, differentiates from siblings, and lists required and optional parameters with explanations. It is complete for an email generation 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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by grouping parameters, explaining the route enum with examples, and providing context for each parameter (e.g., why you need access_reason). This extra semantic richness justifies 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?

The description clearly states the tool writes an email to request access to client systems, tools, etc. It specifies the verb 'Write', the resource, and distinguishes between three routes. It also differentiates from sibling tools like client_material_chase_email and project_restart_email, making its purpose highly 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.

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly says 'For when you need logins, permissions, API keys, or repository invitations from the client side' and provides three distinct routes (initial_request, follow_up, partial_workaround) with clear contexts. It also contrasts with sibling tools, giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/jabbawocky/proposalcraft'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server