ic_hack_application_statusWhere your application stands: applied / approved / waitlisted / rejected / withdrawn, plus the reviewer's note when there is one. waitlisted means yes-if-a-seat-frees, not no. Args: { eid? }. Returns: { ok, applied, application }. Required scope: hack:read (any tier).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| eid | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With readOnlyHint=true already indicating a safe read operation, the description adds valuable behavioral context: the exact statuses returned, the special meaning of 'waitlisted' (yes-if-a-seat-frees), and that a reviewer's note is included when available. It also discloses the return shape and required scope, going beyond the annotation's basic safety signal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is exceptionally concise—two sentences plus args/returns/scope, all front-loaded. Every element earns its place: statuses, the waitlist clarification, reviewer's note, return structure, and required scope. No redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite the unexplained eid parameter, the description covers the essential context: what the tool does, what statuses mean, the return shape, and required permissions. It lacks a few details (e.g., behavior when no application exists, validation of eid), but for a simple status-read tool with annotations, it is largely complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the description only mentions 'Args: { eid? }' without explaining what eid represents. The parameter name alone is ambiguous (event ID? hackathon ID?). The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation, leaving the agent to guess the meaning and optionality of eid.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool as checking one's own hackathon application status, listing specific possible statuses (applied/approved/waitlisted/rejected/withdrawn). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ic_hack_apply, ic_hack_withdraw, and ic_hack_admin_decide_application by focusing on the current status of the user's own application.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description makes clear the tool is for checking your own application status, not for applying or admin actions. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusionary scenarios (e.g., when to use ic_hack_me or admin list tools). The context is strong but lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
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.
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.
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.
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.