Skip to main content
Glama

Immersive Commons

by com.immersivecommons

Reject a pending member-event-request draft (operator)

ic_admin_reject_event
DestructiveIdempotent

Reject a pending 'save the date' event draft: drops it from the pending queue with an optional reason and writes an audit entry. Does NOT publish anything. 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 (operator-facing; member requests do not surface it back to the requester today). Idempotent — rejecting an already-gone id still records the decision and returns ok. Rate-limited to 20 approve+reject mutations per token per UTC day; dry-run calls do NOT count. Args: { id, reason?, confirm? }. Returns: dry-run shape on confirm=false; { ok, id } on confirm=true. Required scope: admin:events_review.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesThe pending event id to reject — the draft slug.
reasonNoOptional moderator note, recorded in the audit log.
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.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true), the description adds critical details: does NOT publish, records audit entry, requires scope admin:events_review, and differentiates rate limit impact for dry-run calls. No contradictions.

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 information-dense and well-structured, but slightly long. Every sentence adds value, yet could be more concise without losing clarity.

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?

For a 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, workflow, idempotency, rate limits, required scope, and return shapes. It leaves no major gaps for an agent to understand invocation.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the description adds meaningful context for each parameter: id is 'draft slug', reason is 'moderator note' recorded in audit log, confirm switches from dry-run to actual mutation and affects rate limit counting. This goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('Reject') and resource ('pending member-event-request draft'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like ic_admin_approve_event. It explicitly states the action on a 'save the date' draft.

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 explains the two-step dry-run vs confirm workflow, mentions idempotency, and notes rate limits for mutations only. It does not explicitly compare to other reject tools (e.g., ic_admin_reject_highlight) but provides sufficient context for when to use this tool.

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