ic_hack_team_joinJoin an existing team by id. One team per person, max 6 per team. Args: { eid?, team_id }. Returns: { ok, team }. Required scope: hack:team, and you must be registered on the event.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| eid | No | ||
| team_id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses important behavioral details beyond the annotations: the need for 'hack:team' scope and event registration, the return shape '{ ok, team }', and the constraints that enforce single team membership and team size. This gives a clear picture of what happens and what is required, though it doesn't detail error cases or idempotency behavior.
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 extremely compact, covering purpose, constraints, arguments, return type, and authorization in two sentences. Every piece of information earns its place, with 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?
For a relatively simple join operation, the description covers the essential context: what the tool does, preconditions, and return shape. However, it leaves the 'eid' parameter undefined and does not mention potential failure modes (e.g., team full, not registered), which could be important for an agent to handle errors gracefully.
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 schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must clarify parameter meanings. It lists 'Args: { eid?, team_id }' but only 'team_id' is implicitly understood from the tool purpose. 'eid' is left unexplained, and no details are given about how these parameters are used or their interdependencies. This is insufficient compensation for the lack of schema descriptions.
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 the action: 'Join an existing team by id.' It identifies the specific resource (a hackathon team) and the mechanism (by id), distinguishing it from related tools like team creation or leaving. The additional constraints (one team per person, max 6 per team) further clarify the purpose.
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 provides clear context by stating prerequisites (required scope and event registration) and constraints (one team per person, max 6 per team), which help the agent decide when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools such as ic_hack_team_create or ic_hack_team_leave, so it stops short of full when-to-use vs. when-not 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.