Skip to main content
Glama

Immersive Commons

by com.immersivecommons

List YOUR own feedback tickets

ic_feedback_list_mine
Read-only

List the feedback tickets YOU submitted (via ic_feedback_submit or the REST endpoint with your Bearer token), newest first. Returns summaries: ticket_id + kind + priority + preview + resolved flag + resolved_at. Use ic_feedback_get_status for the full status of one ticket (incl. the operator's resolution note). Optional resolved filter: true = closed only, false = open only, omit = both. Ownership is automatic — you only ever see tickets attributed to your IC identity (anonymous submissions never appear). Returns: { ok, count, total, scanned, records }. Required scope: feedback:read (granted at ai-floor, ic-member, operator).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoDefault 25; max 200.
offsetNoPaging cursor. Default 0.
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?

Description reveals beyond annotations: ownership is automatic, anonymous submissions never appear, scope requirement (feedback:read). No contradiction with readOnlyHint=true.

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?

Description is well-structured: main purpose first, then return format, filter details, ownership, and scope. Each sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 3 optional parameters and no output schema, the description thoroughly explains return format (fields and envelope structure), ownership filtering, and required scope. No gaps remain.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and parameter descriptions are already detailed. The description adds no meaningful new information beyond restating the resolved filter behavior, which is already in the schema.

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 clearly states 'List the feedback tickets YOU submitted', specifies filtering by resolved state, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ic_feedback_get_status (full status) and ic_admin_list_feedback (admin view).

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?

Explicitly tells when to use this tool (listing own tickets) and when to use ic_feedback_get_status for full status details. Also explains the tri-state resolved filter and required 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