Skip to main content
Glama

Immersive Commons

by com.immersivecommons

Approve a Z.ai key request → mint the key (operator)

ic_admin_approve_key_request
Idempotent

Approve a pending Z.ai key request and MINT the proxy key. Two-step: omit confirm (or pass false) for a dry-run preview of the exact proxy block that would be minted; pass confirm: true to mint. IDEMPOTENT on request_id — a second confirmed approve returns the SAME key (it does NOT mint a second key); the plaintext key is surfaced ONLY on the first mint. For member keys, multiplier overrides the requested multiplier. The minted key works ONLY against the IC→Z.ai gateway (it carries zero IC tool scopes). Rate-limited to 20 approve+deny mutations per token per UTC day; dry-run + idempotent re-approve do NOT count. Args: { request_id, multiplier?: 1|2|5|10|20, confirm? }. Returns dry-run shape on confirm=false; on the first confirm:true mint, { ok, minted:true, agent_token, token_prefix, proxy }. Required scope: admin:llm_keys.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
confirmNoSet to true to actually mint. When false / omitted, returns a dry-run preview that does NOT mint and does NOT count against the daily rate limit.
multiplierNoMember keys only: override the requested weekly-token multiplier. Ignored for workshop keys.
request_idYesThe id of the pending request (from ic_admin_list_pending_key_requests).

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description adds critical behavioral context: the two-phase dry-run, the fact that the plaintext key appears only on the first mint, that the key works only against IC->Z.ai gateway with zero IC tool scopes, and the rate-limit specifics. It also states the required scope (admin:llm_keys). This exceeds the information provided by annotations alone.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is information-dense but well-organized. It front-loads the primary action, then explains the two-step process, idempotence, key scope, rate limits, and parameter details. Every sentence serves a clear purpose with no redundancy. The structure is logical and easy to follow.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (two-step, idempotent, rate-limited, specific scope) and the absence of an output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs: behavior, parameters, return shape, and prerequisites (e.g., using request_id from list). It also notes the required scope and rate-limit exclusion for dry-runs.

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% (all three parameters described). The description adds meaning beyond the schema: it explains that omit/false confirm means dry-run, that multiplier is for member keys only, and that request_id comes from the pending list. However, the schema already documents these with similar descriptions, so the added value is moderate. Score 4 reflects clear extra context without being essential.

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 approves a pending key request and mints a proxy key. The verb 'approve' and 'mint' specify the action, and the resource (key request) is unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ic_admin_deny_key_request by mentioning approval and minting.

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 provides explicit guidance on the two-step dry-run/confirm workflow, idempotent behavior, and rate limiting (20 approve+deny per day). It mentions the prerequisite source of request_id (from ic_admin_list_pending_key_requests) and notes that dry-run and idempotent re-approvals do not count toward the rate limit. This effectively tells the agent when and how to use the tool.

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