Skip to main content
Glama

Immersive Commons

by com.immersivecommons

Read the hackathon admissions queue (event_admin / organizer)

ic_hack_admin_list_applications
Read-only

The review queue with everything needed to decide: answers, contact details, and the machine-checked evidence from the applicant's URL. Requires the event_admin or organizer role ON THIS EVENT — an event_admin runs admissions without being an IC floor operator. Args: { eid?, status? (applied|approved|waitlisted|rejected|withdrawn; default applied), limit? }. Returns: { ok, counts, seats, applications[] }. Required scope: hack:manage (any tier — the event role is the real gate).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
eidNo
limitNo
statusNo

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: role requirements (event_admin/organizer), required scope (hack:manage), and the response shape (ok, counts, seats, applications[]). It also reveals that the data includes machine-checked evidence, enriching the read operation's purpose.

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 concise and front-loaded with purpose, then efficiently packs args and returns into a compact notation. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or 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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description specifies the return fields (ok, counts, seats, applications[]) and covers permissions, role requirements, and parameter defaults. This is complete for a list-type tool, especially with readOnlyHint annotation confirming safety.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates by listing all three parameters (eid, status, limit) and providing rich semantics for status (enum values and default 'applied'). It does not elaborate on eid or limit, but those are reasonably self-explanatory from 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?

The description clearly states this tool reads the hackathon admissions queue with a specific verb ('Read' in the title, 'review queue' in the description). It distinguishes itself from siblings like ic_hack_admin_decide_application by focusing on listing/applications for decision-making, not making the decision itself.

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?

It provides clear context on when to use the tool: requires event_admin or organizer role on this event, and clarifies that event_admin runs admissions without being an IC floor operator. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for similar operations (e.g., ic_hack_admin_decide_application for decisions), leaving some inference to the agent.

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