Skip to main content
Glama

Immersive Commons

by com.immersivecommons

Search class-B integration activity across members (operator)

ic_admin_agent_audit_search
Read-only

Cross-member audit search over class-B integration activity (DESIGN §11). Walks the matching clients → their bearer tokens → those tokens' outbox threads → each thread's actions, newest-first. Surfaces actions reachable from a client's OWN outbox (the integration's blast radius); counterparty-side actions are out of v1 scope (no reverse index yet). Operator-only (admin:agent_clients + live operator re-check). Args: { client_id?: string, operator_human?: string, member_id?: string, kind?: 'policy_eval'|'member_tap'|'system'|'counterparty', since?: ISO datetime, limit?: number (default 200), offset?: number (default 0) }. Returns: { ok, hits, total, has_more } — total counts every filtered hit; page past the cap with offset. Required scope: admin:agent_clients.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kindNoRestrict to one action kind.
limitNoCap on returned actions, newest-first (default 200).
sinceNoISO datetime lower bound — only actions at/after this.
offsetNoPagination offset into the filtered newest-first list (default 0).
client_idNoRestrict to one client's actions.
member_idNoRestrict to actions whose thread is addressed TO this recipient.
operator_humanNoRestrict to one operator-of-record's clients.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds rich behavioral context: the search algorithm (walks clients → tokens → threads → actions), ordering (newest-first), pagination details, and scope limitations. No contradictions with annotations.

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 a single paragraph that efficiently covers purpose, algorithm, scope, parameters, and return format. It is front-loaded and wastes few words, though the parameter listing could be seen as redundant with the schema.

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?

For a read-only search tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description explains the search logic, pagination (total, has_more, offset), and filtering options. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand usage, though error handling and rate limits are not mentioned.

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% with all parameters described. The description adds context by explaining how parameters like client_id and kind fit into the search algorithm, and clarifies the return format. This goes beyond the baseline 3.

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 performs a 'cross-member audit search over class-B integration activity', specifying the verb 'search' and the resource 'class-B integration activity'. It distinguishes from siblings like ic_admin_agent_client_list by focusing on audit of actions across members.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description explicitly notes operator-only access, required scope 'admin:agent_clients', and that counterparty-side actions are out of scope. It provides context on when to use (for auditing class-B integration) but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, though no direct alternative exists.

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

All Immersive Commons toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools are clearly scoped to distinct actions (e.g., ic_hack_apply vs. ic_hack_register, ic_rooms_create vs. ic_rooms_join). A few pairs could confuse an agent: floor10_submit_highlight vs. floorcast_push both submit HighlightStories but to different queues, and ic_directory_search / ic_agent_directory_lookup / ic_admin_list_members overlap in searching members. Overall, the long descriptions help disambiguate, but the volume requires careful reading.

Naming Consistency3/5

The dominant pattern is ic_<domain>_<verb>_<object> (e.g., ic_admin_list_pending_events, ic_headsets_checkout), but there are notable deviations: floor10_* and floorcast_* prefixes break the ic_ convention, and a few tools use noun-style names (ic_health, ic_capabilities, ic_donations_total). Verb placement also varies (get_* vs *_get, e.g., ic_get_my_membership vs. ic_membership_set_profile). Still, most names are readable and predictable.

Tool Count1/5

175 tools is an extreme count for a single MCP server, far beyond the 50+ threshold that indicates an unwieldy surface. While the platform covers many domains (events, files, hackathon, headsets, prints, rooms, etc.), bundling everything into one server makes discovery and selection difficult. This would be better split into several narrowly-scoped servers.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers nearly every lifecycle for each domain: CRUD for files/folders, full hackathon admissions and judging, headset lending with waivers and incidents, print farm submission and handoffs, and room coordination. Minor gaps exist: no delete for files/folders, no cancel for events, and some actions (like revoking a Z.ai key or tearing down a room) are explicitly left to human console use. Overall, the surface is remarkably comprehensive for the stated scope.

Resources