Request preparation

A useful setup request starts with a result.

A Moxby team workspace setup inquiry starts with the work you want to change. Explain the result you need, using an example that does not expose anyone's private information. You do not need a finished technical specification.

Send setup inquiry

Individual scope, not an instant quoteThe basis depends on the requested workspace or browser behaviour and the environment it needs to work in. No rate is published here. Any later commercial proposal uses USD; sending a request creates no order or payment obligation.

For teams discussing shared work or a browser-side companion.

Preparation is not a compatibility check. A submitted request is not an accepted scope.

The inquiry ledger

Give the discussion a useful starting point.

Write about an ordinary piece of work, not every possible exception in your organisation. The point of the first message is to make the intended change understandable. Technical uncertainty can be part of that message.

01
Name the work that is getting separated.
For a workspace inquiry, say where the instruction lives and where the working document lives. If a decision in chat no longer matches the task, describe that mismatch. “The reviewer has to search a conversation to find the agreed revision” says more than “we need better collaboration.”
For a browser workflow assistant, begin with the website action rather than a desired feature name. Explain what the person is looking at and what they intend to do next. A product-area label helps route the discussion, but the work itself gives it substance.
02
Describe what would count as the right result.
Make the result observable. A teammate should be able to find the instruction beside its source document, or a person should be able to review proposed changes before a website receives them. These are examples of requested outcomes, not claims about a supplied feature.
Distinguish a draft from a completed action. If success means preparing text for review, do not call it “submitting the form.” That extra verb changes both the permission question and the consequence of getting something wrong.
03
Keep the unresolved boundaries visible.
Identify the point where a person must decide. Mention a website or external service if one is involved, using a public name rather than a private session link. For a local scenario, state what starts on the device and whether anything needs to leave it.
It is fine to say you do not yet know which permissions are available. Do not grant access just to make an inquiry look complete. The review has to distinguish the behaviour you want from the access you are actually authorised to provide.
A useful unknown“We need to check whether this website permits the proposed action” is a scope question. It is not a reason to send credentials.
04
Send the request, then separate review from agreement.
The contact form sends your description for consideration. It does not run a workflow, reserve access or confirm that a browser environment is supported. A stored inquiry reference identifies the correspondence; it does not approve the work.
Any resulting discussion needs to settle feasibility and the intended limits before an offer can be agreed. A request can need clarification or a smaller scope. There is no promised response time, delivery date or acceptance outcome on this page.

Before you send

Keep the structure. Remove the records.

The most useful example preserves the relationship between an instruction and its result without carrying the original personal or confidential details. Recreate a short passage in plain text. Use invented task content, clearly marked as an example, instead of forwarding a live document.

Covering a name on a screenshot is not the same as removing identifying information from its source. Comments, revision history and a sharing URL can still reveal more than the visible page. For the first inquiry, a clean written description is usually the safer choice.

Check the text as a recipient would read it. Does it expose a customer's record? Does a URL contain a token? Is an internal project name enough to identify someone? Remove those details before the request leaves your device.

An illustrative document example with identifying details covered before sharing. — Illustrative workflowPreparation, not a security guarantee. Recreated text avoids sharing the original file.

A written example, not a product promise

Current routine: A reviewer comments on a draft instruction in a conversation. The task still points to an earlier version, so the next person cannot tell which wording to use.
Requested result: Keep the task close to the relevant discussion and identify the working text the reviewer intends the next person to read. Do not treat every chat message as an instruction.
Optional browser part: Prepare proposed text beside a named public website page. A person reviews it before anything is submitted. The inquiry asks whether that pattern is feasible; it does not assume the website is supported.
Stop condition: If the target field cannot be identified confidently, stop and ask for a decision. Do not choose a similar-looking field or repeat an action to see whether it worked.
Details left out: No real customer names, private documents or authenticated links. The example describes the relationship between the work items without carrying the records behind them.

Request / agreement

A wish list does not settle the scope.

Illustrative requested workflow beside an on-screen scope review checklist. — Illustrative workflowA requested sequence and its review questions. This is not a signed agreement or a verified integration.

The request says what you want. An agreed scope has to say what is actually included.

That distinction matters most where shared context meets an action on another website. A workspace discussion can explain why a change is needed without giving the browser assistant permission to make it.

Any proposal needs to distinguish the environment considered from environments not checked. It also needs to separate an intended review point from an assumption that someone will notice an error later.

Nothing on this site supplies an automatic entitlement to software access or a particular release. Commercial conditions and any express assurances belong in the actual agreement. Read the terms on assurances before treating an example as a commitment.

Initial inquiry

What you can ask for

A description of the workspace relationship that needs improving, including the handoff that currently causes confusion.
A proposed browser action and the result you would like to inspect before proceeding.
An environment note, with unknown compatibility or permission questions stated openly.
A preference about where the workflow should stop and which decisions should remain with a person.

Any later agreement

What needs to be settled

The included behaviour, its limits and the circumstances in which it is intended to be used.
The environment and website permissions actually considered, rather than every possible browser or site.
The review boundary and the treatment of an uncertain or changed page state.
The commercial scope, together with any expressly agreed conditions. A submission confirmation does not settle these points.

Questions worth keeping

Check the edges before expanding the work.

A small example can be enough to expose a large assumption. The following are discussion boundaries, not a second setup tool or a list of supported capabilities.

Shared visibility

Who should see the discussion, and who needs the working document? Describe roles without listing colleagues' personal details. Being part of a conversation should not be treated as permission to act in someone else's browser session.

The team workspace page explains the relationship between a task and its source context. Keep your inquiry focused on where that relationship breaks in your routine.

Browser authority

Is the person asking for help with an action they are already permitted to perform? A visible website control does not, by itself, establish permission for assisted or automated use. Account authority and a site's own rules need their own consideration.

See the browser assistant discussion for the distinction between working beside an active page and requesting an unattended job.

External connections

A local starting point does not make the whole workflow local. A document can begin on a device while the proposed result is sent to a website. State that boundary directly instead of using “local” as a shorthand for offline or private.

The local browser workflows page has the input-and-output explanation. Your initial message only needs enough environment detail to make the question clear.

Changed or unclear results

A page layout may move a control. A website may show an uncertain result after an action. Describe what should happen at that point, especially if repeating the action could create a duplicate or an irreversible change.

The website action workflows page owns the action-risk discussion. For the inquiry, identify the stopping condition rather than assuming a retry is harmless.

Ready to discuss

Send the smallest example that explains the problem.

A few clear paragraphs are enough to start a team workspace setup discussion. If you are still choosing product areas, use the setup builder first. It collects preferences for an inquiry; it does not calculate a price or promise availability.

Moxby is not the right starting point for a request to bypass website restrictions or silently approve consequential actions. A bounded routine with a visible decision point makes a more useful discussion.