Skip to main content
Glama

Immersive Commons

by com.immersivecommons

Deny a pending membership-tier request (operator)

ic_admin_deny_tier_request
DestructiveIdempotent

Deny a pending tier request. Clears the pending fields + KV snapshot; the user's tier is unchanged. Two-step: omit confirm (or pass false) for a dry-run preview. Pass confirm: true to actually apply. The optional reason is recorded in the audit log and is surfaced to the requester on their /membership page so they understand why. Rate-limited to 20 approve+deny mutations per token per UTC day; dry-run calls do NOT count. Args: { user_id, reason?, confirm? }. Returns: dry-run shape on confirm=false; { ok, user_id, tier, was_pending } on confirm=true. Required scope: admin:tier_review.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
reasonNoOptional note. Recorded in the audit trail and shown to the requester on their /membership page.
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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses key behaviors beyond annotations: it clears pending fields, leaves user tier unchanged, records reason in audit log shown to requester, rate-limit details, and scope requirement. No contradiction with annotations (idempotentHint consistent with dry-run and one-time effect).

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 highly concise with four sentences, front-loading the purpose. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy, earning a top score.

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, the description provides return shapes for both call types, rate limits, scope, and behavioral details. It is complete for the tool's complexity and context.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that reason is surfaced to requester and confirm controls dry-run vs mutation, enriching the schema's basic descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool denies a pending tier request using specific verb and resource. It distinguishes the action (deny vs approve) but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like ic_admin_deny_key_request, though the resource (tier) is clear from the name.

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 provides explicit guidance on the two-step process (dry-run with confirm=false, actual mutation with confirm=true) and mentions rate limits and scope. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives (e.g., approve), but the context is sufficient for a deny action.

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