Skip to main content
Glama

Immersive Commons

by com.immersivecommons

Get the status of ONE of your feedback tickets

ic_feedback_get_status
Read-only

Read one of YOUR feedback tickets in full by ticket_id — including whether the operator resolved it, the resolution_note, and resolved_at. Ownership-gated: a ticket_id that isn't yours returns { ok:false, error_kind:'forbidden' }; an unknown / expired id returns { ok:false, error_kind:'not_found' }. The message + sidecars come back inside <USER_SUBMITTED_TEXT> quarantine envelopes (your own text, echoed safely). Args: { ticket_id }. Returns: { ok, record, resolved, resolution_note?, resolved_at? }. Required scope: feedback:read (granted at ai-floor, ic-member, operator).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ticket_idYesticket_id from a prior ic_feedback_submit (format fb_*).

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint=true annotation, the description reveals key behaviors: ownership-gated access, specific error shapes (forbidden/not_found), quarantine envelopes for user-submitted text, and the required scope feedback:read. This fully informs the agent of side effects and constraints.

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 informative and well-structured, front-loading the core purpose then detailing error behavior and output. It is slightly verbose but every sentence adds value; no redundancy. Efficient but could be trimmed slightly.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description fully documents return fields (ok, record, resolved, resolution_note?, resolved_at?). It also covers error shapes and required OAuth scope. Combined with annotations (readOnlyHint), the agent has complete information to use the tool.

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?

Only one parameter (ticket_id) with 100% schema description coverage. The description mentions using ticket_id but adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema's description of 'ticket_id from a prior ic_feedback_submit (format fb_*)'. 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 explicitly states the tool reads one of YOUR feedback tickets by ticket_id, with ownership gating. It clearly distinguishes from list or admin tools by specifying 'one of YOUR' and describing error responses for unauthorized or unknown 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?

The description provides clear context for when to use the tool (get status of one ticket) and explains error handling for forbidden and not_found cases. It does not explicitly compare to sibling tools like ic_feedback_list_mine or ic_admin_list_feedback, but the ownership restriction and single-ticket focus imply usage scope.

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