ic_hack_bounty_postPublish a sponsor challenge participants can build against. Shows on the event page and in ic_hack_get. Args: { eid?, sponsor, title, description?, prize? }. Returns: { ok, bounty }. Required scope: hack:sponsor + sponsor or organizer role.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| eid | No | ||
| prize | No | Free text — prize structures vary too much to model. | |
| title | Yes | ||
| sponsor | Yes | ||
| description | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds value beyond the false annotations by disclosing required permissions, the side effect that the bounty 'Shows on the event page and in ic_hack_get,' and the return shape '{ ok, bounty }.' It doesn't cover error cases or idempotency, but the write nature is clear.
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 three sentences, with purpose first, followed by a compact args/returns list, and finally the required scope. Each sentence contributes unique information with no wasted words.
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?
While it provides return shape and required scope, it leaves ambiguities: what 'eid' refers to, what the 'bounty' object contains, and whether there are approval steps or error conditions. Given no output schema, these gaps make the description only partially complete for a write tool.
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 only 20% (prize has a description), so the description should compensate. It lists argument names with question marks, but this only reiterates the schema's required list and does not clarify the meaning of eid, sponsor, title, description, or prize beyond their names.
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 uses the specific verb 'Publish' and identifies the resource as a 'sponsor challenge/bounty.' It also differentiates from sibling tools by noting the content appears on the event page and in ic_hack_get, making clear this is the creation action for that content.
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?
It gives clear context by specifying the required scope 'hack:sponsor' and role 'sponsor or organizer,' telling the agent who can use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, though no direct alternative exists in the sibling list.
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.