Skip to main content
Glama

Immersive Commons

by com.immersivecommons

Revoke a class-B agent-client integration (operator)

ic_admin_agent_client_revoke
Destructive

Revoke an integration and flag its AUTONOMOUS actions for recipient re-confirmation (DESIGN §9 — interactive actions are NOT flagged, each had per-call approval). Revokes every linked bearer token so the integration is dead immediately, snapshots prior state for one-step revert (DESIGN §18), and returns how many autonomous actions were flagged + tokens revoked. Operator-only (admin:agent_clients + live operator re-check). Idempotent. Args: { client_id: string (cli_), reason: string }. Returns: { ok, actions_flagged, tokens_revoked }. Required scope: admin:agent_clients.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
reasonYesWhy the integration is being revoked — recorded on the client record + rollback snapshot.
client_idYesThe cli_<base32> id from ic_admin_agent_client_list.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Description reveals key behaviors beyond annotations: revokes all bearer tokens for immediate death, snapshots prior state for revert, and returns counts of flagged actions and revoked tokens. No contradiction 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?

Description is dense but well-organized: purpose, side effects, idempotency, return value, scope, and args are all covered efficiently. Slightly long but each sentence adds value.

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?

Despite no output schema, description explicitly lists return fields (ok, actions_flagged, tokens_revoked). Covers all critical aspects for a destructive admin tool: scope, side effects, idempotency, and design references.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions. Description adds minimal extra info (client_id format cli_<base32>), but schema already explains each parameter adequately.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Revoke' and resource 'class-B agent-client integration', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like ic_admin_agent_client_list and ic_admin_agent_client_register.

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?

States operator-only scope, idempotency, and that it revokes integrations and flags autonomous actions. Implicitly tells when to use (revoke) versus other actions, but lacks explicit 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.

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