Skip to main content
Glama

Immersive Commons

by com.immersivecommons

Unpublish a member's Funko figure (operator)

ic_admin_funko_takedown
Destructive

Take a published figure out of public view: sets publicShare=false and removes the handle from the gallery index, so /api/funko/m/ immediately returns the SAME not_found as a handle that never existed. Accepts a handle or a Clerk user id. IDEMPOTENT — taking down an already-private figure returns ok:true with was_public:false, so a retry after a timeout is safe. DOES NOT DELETE the head GLB from blob storage: this is reversible (see ic_admin_funko_restore) and blob_retained:true says so on every response. If you need the bytes actually gone, this tool is not that and you should say so explicitly to your operator. Every call is audit-logged with the actor, subject and reason. Args: { handle, reason? }. Returns: { ok, handle, userId, was_public, blob_retained }. Required scope: admin:funko_review (operator).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
handleYesThe member's funko handle, or their Clerk user id.
reasonNoModerator note. Recorded in the audit log — write it for the next operator.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

The description claims idempotency ('IDEMPOTENT') and explains the behavior on retry, but the annotations set idempotentHint=false. This is a direct contradiction. Per the scoring rule, a contradiction warrants a score of 1. Additionally, the description provides rich behavioral detail (reversibility, audit logging, no blob deletion), but the contradiction undermines reliability.

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?

The description is about 150 words and front-loads the main action. Every sentence adds value, but it is slightly verbose. It could be shortened without losing clarity, but it remains well-structured and informative.

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?

The description is very complete for a mutation tool with destructive effect, idempotency, reversibility, audit logging, and no output schema. It covers side effects, prerequisites, alternatives, and return fields. No gaps are evident.

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?

The schema covers both parameters with 100% description coverage. The description adds minor context: handle accepts handle or Clerk user id, and reason is a moderator note for audit log. This aligns with the schema descriptions, so the description adds limited value beyond the schema. Baseline 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Take a published figure out of public view' and explains the specific effects (sets publicShare=false, removes from gallery index, returns not_found). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool ic_admin_funko_restore by noting this is reversible and not a deletion.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool (to unpublish a figure) and when not to use it ('If you need the bytes actually gone, this tool is not that'). It also directs to the alternative (ic_admin_funko_restore) and mentions required scope (admin:funko_review).

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