Skip to main content
Glama

Immersive Commons

by com.immersivecommons

Resolve a feedback ticket (operator)

ic_admin_resolve_feedback
Idempotent

Mark one ticket resolved with an optional note. Two-step: omit confirm (or pass false) for a dry-run preview that returns the would-be-updated record without mutating. Pass confirm: true to actually apply. Already-resolved tickets return error_kind 'already_resolved' (idempotent at the channel level — no double-write of resolved_at). Args: { ticket_id, note?, confirm? }. Returns: dry-run shape on confirm=false; { ok, record } on confirm=true. Required scope: admin:feedback_review.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
noteNoOptional resolution note. Recorded on the record. Useful for 'shipping in v1.18' or 'wontfix — out of scope'.
confirmNoSet true to actually mutate. When false / omitted, returns a dry-run preview that does NOT change state.
ticket_idYesticket_id from a prior submit (format fb_*).

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Discloses two-step mutation control, dry-run preview, idempotency, and error_kind 'already_resolved'. Requires scope 'admin:feedback_review'. No contradiction with annotations (idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false).

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?

Five well-structured sentences with front-loaded purpose. Every sentence adds value: purpose, two-step process, idempotency, arguments, return shapes, required scope. No fluff.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description fully explains return shapes (dry-run vs. {ok, record}) and error case (already_resolved). Complete for agent to invoke correctly.

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% with descriptions. Description restates parameters and adds contextual value (e.g., dry-run behavior for confirm, note for 'shipping in v1.18'). Adds meaning beyond schema beyond baseline.

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?

Description begins with 'Mark one ticket resolved with an optional note,' which is a specific verb+resource. It clearly distinguishes from sibling admin tools (e.g., ic_admin_approve_event, ic_admin_list_feedback) by focusing on resolving feedback tickets.

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?

Explicitly describes the two-step process (dry-run vs. confirm), when to use confirm, and idempotent behavior for already-resolved tickets. Provides clear context but doesn't explicitly mention alternatives like ic_admin_list_feedback.

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