ic_hack_judge_listAll submissions with their repo, demo, blurb and agent-surface description, plus the scores you have already given. Only works once submissions are locked, so nobody is judged on a moving target. Args: { eid? }. Returns: { ok, submissions[], my_scores[] }. Required scope: hack:judge + judge or organizer role.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| eid | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint, so the low bar is met. The description adds specific details: the locked requirement, included data fields (repo, demo, blurb, agent-surface), and that my_scores are included. It also states the required scope, which isn't in annotations.
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 concise, front-loaded with the core functionality, and includes return format and scope in a compact manner. No fluff.
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?
Without an output schema, the description provides the return shape (ok, submissions[], my_scores[]) and lists the fields within submissions. The main gap is the undefined eid parameter, but overall it gives adequate context for a simple read 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?
The only parameter eid is listed as an optional arg with no semantic explanation. Schema coverage is 0% and the description doesn't clarify what eid refers to or how it affects results, so the agent cannot reliably know when to provide it.
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 states 'All submissions with their repo, demo, blurb and agent-surface description, plus the scores you have already given.' The verb 'Read' and resource 'every hackathon submission' make the purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it from scoring tools like ic_hack_judge_score.
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 provides a key timing constraint: 'Only works once submissions are locked, so nobody is judged on a moving target.' It also specifies required scope. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, but the lock condition effectively tells when this is appropriate.
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.