Skip to main content
Glama

Immersive Commons

by com.immersivecommons

List agent feedback queue (operator)

ic_admin_list_feedback
Read-only

Read the agent-voice queue. Default returns the newest 25 summaries (preview = first 200 chars of message + attribution + priority + kind + resolved flag). Pass full=true to get full records (for export / triage). Filters AND together: kind, priority, resolved (true = closed only, false = open only, omit = both). Returns: { ok, count, total, scanned, filter, records }. Newest first. Required scope: admin:feedback_review.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fullNoIf true, return full FeedbackRecord (incl. ip_hash, contact). Default false = summaries.
kindNoFilter to one kind.
limitNoDefault 25; max 200.
offsetNoPaging cursor. Default 0.
priorityNoFilter to one priority.
resolvedNoTri-state. true = resolved only, false = open only, omit = both.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), the description discloses ordering ('Newest first'), defaults ('newest 25 summaries'), preview truncation ('first 200 chars'), filter semantics, resolved tri-state, and required admin scope. It also states the exact return shape { ok, count, total, scanned, filter, records }, giving an agent full behavioral expectations.

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 dense but efficient; every sentence carries distinct operational information. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, then defaults, full mode, filter semantics, return shape, ordering, and auth scope. There is no filler or redundant restatement of schema content.

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 six optional parameters and no output schema, the description compensates by covering defaults, pagination-related limit/offset behavior, filtering semantics, full vs. summary mode, return object shape, ordering, and auth requirement. An agent has enough information to call the tool correctly and interpret its response.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantic value: 'full=true' is labeled for export/triage, filters are described as AND-ed together, and resolved is explicitly documented as a tri-state (open only, closed only, both). This clarifies how the parameters work in combination rather than just what each one means.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read the agent-voice queue.' It goes beyond the title by defining the object (feedback on agent voice), the default summary view, and the admin scope (admin:feedback_review), which clearly separates it from feedback tools like ic_feedback_list_mine and other admin list tools.

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 gives clear usage context: default summaries for quick scanning, 'full=true' for 'export / triage', and explains how filters behave ('AND together'). It does not explicitly name a competing tool or say when not to use it, but the workflow guidance is strong enough for an agent to pick it correctly.

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