Skip to main content
Glama

Immersive Commons

by com.immersivecommons

Re-publish a figure taken down in error (operator)

ic_admin_funko_restore

The undo for ic_admin_funko_takedown: sets publicShare=true and re-lists the handle. This OVERRIDES the member's own switch, so it is audit-logged exactly as heavily as the takedown. REFUSED if the handle has since been claimed by a different member — restoring under a name that now belongs to somebody else would publish one member's figure behind another member's identity. Args: { handle, reason? }. Returns: { ok, handle, userId } or { ok:false, error_kind:'validation' } when the handle changed hands. Required scope: admin:funko_review (operator).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
handleYesThe member's funko handle, or their Clerk user id.
reasonNoWhy the takedown is being reversed.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the minimal annotations: it overrides the member's own switch, is heavily audit-logged, is refused if the handle has been reassigned, and requires a specific scope. These details compensate for the lack of rich annotation flags.

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 a single, well-structured paragraph that front-loads the purpose, then covers behavioral notes, refusal condition, arguments, return format, and required scope. Every sentence is necessary and adds value with no redundancy.

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?

The description covers purpose, behavior, refusal condition, return format, and scope. It is slightly incomplete by not explicitly stating that the figure must currently be in a taken-down state, but this is implied by 'undo.' Overall sufficient for correct agent usage.

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 description coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters. The description mentions the args but does not add new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states the tool is the undo of ic_admin_funko_takedown, sets publicShare=true, and re-lists the handle. It clearly distinguishes from the paired takedown tool and other admin functions like ic_admin_funko_grant by specifying its role as a reversal operation.

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 indicates it is specifically for reversing a takedown and includes a refusal condition (handle changed hands). It provides clear context for when to use it versus alternatives, though it does not explicitly list 'do not use' scenarios or compare to other sibling tools.

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