Skip to main content
Glama

Immersive Commons

by com.immersivecommons

Decide a submitted photo (organiser)

ic_hack_photo_review

Move one photo to a state. published puts it in the gallery, rejected declines it, hidden pulls a photo that was already up, and pending returns it to the queue. EVERY TRANSITION IS REVERSIBLE AND NOTHING IS EVER DELETED — the bytes survive a hide, which is exactly why hidden and not a delete is the right answer when someone in a frame objects: it is honoured immediately and undone just as fast if it was a mistake. Call with no photo_id to READ the queue instead of deciding anything. note is shown to the submitter, so write it to them: a rejected photo with a reason is a person who knows where they stand. Args: { eid?, photo_id?, state?, note? }. Returns: { ok, pending[] } when reading, { ok, photo } when deciding. Required scope: hack:ops or hack:manage, plus an organizer / event_admin / volunteer role at the event.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
eidNo
noteNoShown to the submitter.
stateNo
photo_idNoOmit to read the pending queue without deciding.

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

It goes far beyond the annotations by explaining that every transition is reversible, nothing is ever deleted, hidden bytes survive, the note is shown to the submitter, and the return shape differs for read vs decide. This fully compensates for annotations that only mark the operation as mutable but non-destructive, and does not contradict them.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the core action, then state semantics, safety/rationale, read mode, output shape, and scope. All sentences earn their place, but the rhetorical finish about a person knowing where they stand is a slight redundancy after 'write it to them'.

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?

With no output schema and sparse annotations, the description provides the needed return shapes, authorization, state transition effects, reversibility, and the hidden-use case. An organizer agent has everything necessary to invoke this tool correctly.

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?

The description adds real meaning to photo_id and state: omitting photo_id reads the queue, and each state value has a distinct effect on the photo. It reiterates note as user-facing. However, eid is only listed with no explanation, leaving its semantics implicit despite being one of four parameters.

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 immediately says 'Move one photo to a state' and enumerates the state semantics: published, rejected, hidden, pending. It clearly distinguishes this tool from upload-only and list-only tools by framing an organizer decision action.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly says when to read the queue ('Call with no photo_id'), when to choose hidden instead of delete ('when someone in a frame objects'), and what permissions are required ('hack:ops or hack:manage, plus organizer / event_admin / volunteer role'). These are concrete selection and invocation conditions.

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