Skip to main content
Glama

Immersive Commons

by com.immersivecommons

Hide or restore a group-chat message (operator)

ic_hack_chat_moderate

Take a message off the public event page and out of every agent's read. The feed is on a public page with a sponsor's name on it, so this is the lever that exists for the minute someone posts something that cannot stay up. Idempotent, and reversible with action:'unhide' — a hidden message is tombstoned by id rather than spliced out of the log, so a mistake costs nothing. Args: { eid?, message_id, action ('hide'|'unhide', default 'hide') }. Returns: { ok, message_id, hidden }. Required scope: hack:admin (operator tier).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
eidNo
actionNo
message_idYesFrom ic_hack_chat_read.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

The description adds rich behavioral detail: idempotency, reversibility, tombstoning by id, required scope, and returned fields. However, it explicitly states 'Idempotent' while the annotation idempotentHint is false, which is a direct contradiction and forces this score to 1 per the rubric.

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 well-structured: effect first, then rationale, then Idempotent/reversibility, then args, returns, and scope. Every sentence earns its place and is front-loaded with the most decision-relevant information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a low-complexity mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the core behavior, argument summary, return shape, scope requirement, and reversibility. The main gap is the unexplained eid parameter, which is optional but still undefined.

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 schema coverage at only 33%, the description compensates by summarizing all arguments, marking eid as optional, and specifying action's enum values and default 'hide'. It adds operational meaning to action, though the semantics of eid remain unexplained.

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 a specific, vivid operation: 'Take a message off the public event page and out of every agent's read.' It clearly names the resource (group-chat message), the action (hide/restore), and the operator context, and it is easily distinguished from siblings like ic_hack_chat_post and ic_hack_chat_read.

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 explains when this tool is the right lever: when something is posted to a public sponsor-branded feed and cannot stay up. It also explicitly describes the reversal path via action:'unhide', giving clear usage context, though it does not name a specific alternative tool to use instead.

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