Skip to main content
Glama

Immersive Commons

by com.immersivecommons

Approve a pending membership-tier request (operator)

ic_admin_approve_tier_request
Idempotent

Approve a pending tier request and set the user's tier. Two-step: omit confirm (or pass false) for a dry-run preview that returns what the call would do without mutating state. Pass confirm: true to actually apply. If tier is omitted, the user is approved to the tier they requested; pass tier to override (e.g. they asked for ic-member but you approve ai-floor). Rate-limited to 20 approve+deny mutations per token per UTC day; dry-run calls do NOT count. Args: { user_id, tier?: 'ft-member'|'ai-floor'|'ic-member'|'operator', reason?, confirm? }. Returns: dry-run shape on confirm=false; { ok, user_id, from, to, action: 'approve' } on confirm=true. Required scope: admin:tier_review.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tierNoOptional override. If omitted, approves the user to the tier they requested. 'operator' is approvable here even though it isn't self-requestable.
reasonNoOptional note recorded in the audit trail.
confirmNoSet to true to actually mutate. When false / omitted, returns a dry-run preview that does NOT change state and does NOT count against the daily rate limit.
user_idYesClerk user_id of the pending requester.

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes beyond annotations: explains dry-run behavior, rate limit distinction, and that 'operator' tier is approvable despite not being self-requestable. Adds value beyond readOnlyHint and idempotentHint.

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?

Efficiently packed with essential information: purpose, two-step workflow, rate limits, parameter descriptions, return shapes, scope. No fluff.

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?

Covers all necessary context for a mutation tool with dry-run: workflow, rate limits, return shapes, scope. No output schema but return shapes are described. Complete for the complexity level.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Adds meaning beyond schema: explains tier override behavior, notes that 'operator' is allowed here, clarifies reason is audited, and details confirm behavior. Schema coverage is 100% but description enriches.

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 'Approve a pending tier request and set the user's tier' and distinguishes from sibling tools like deny and list. It explains the dry-run vs confirm pattern, making purpose specific.

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?

Explicitly describes the two-step workflow and rate limiting. Mentions required scope. Lacks direct comparison to alternatives like deny_tier_request, but provides sufficient context.

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