Skip to main content
Glama

Immersive Commons

by com.immersivecommons

Approve / waitlist / reject an application (event_admin / organizer)

ic_hack_admin_decide_application

Decide one application. Approving grants the roles that applicant TYPE maps to server-side and consumes a seat — you cannot name a role in this call, which is what makes it safe to hand the admissions desk to a non-operator. An event_admin decides EVERY type, staff included — what an approval may grant is fixed by the table, and no application can ever grant an appointing role (organizer / event_admin); those go through ic_hack_admin_role, operator only. A rejection requires a note; the applicant sees it. seats_full on an approval means waitlist them instead. Args: { eid?, application_id, decision: 'approve'|'waitlist'|'reject', note? }. Returns: { ok, application, seats }. Required scope: hack:manage (any tier — the event role is the real gate).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
eidNo
noteNoShown to the applicant. Required when rejecting.
decisionYes
application_idYes

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already flag this as mutating/non-idempotent, but the description goes further: approval grants mapped roles and consumes a seat, no role naming is possible, rejection requires a note visible to the applicant, and `seats_full` triggers waitlisting. No contradiction with annotations.

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 every clause carries essential information. It starts with the core action, then layers constraints and edge cases, ending with required scope and return shape.

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 no output schema, it clearly states returns `{ ok, application, seats }`, required scope, and all decision semantics. This is sufficient for an agent to decide and invoke correctly.

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?

Schema only describes `note`; description explains `eid`, `application_id`, and the `decision` enum values, including conditions like 'note required when rejecting' and `seats_full` behavior. This compensates for the low schema coverage.

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 'Decide one application,' a specific verb and resource. It further distinguishes itself from `ic_hack_admin_role` by explicitly stating that appointing roles go through that operator-only tool, making the purpose unmistakable.

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?

It provides explicit when-to-use context: an event_admin can decide every application type, and the tool is safe for non-operators because roles are mapped server-side. It names `ic_hack_admin_role` as the alternative for appointing roles and instructs to waitlist when `seats_full` is true.

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