ic_hack_withdrawWithdraw. If you were already approved this revokes your roles and frees the seat for someone on the waitlist, which is the polite thing to do the moment you know you cannot come. Args: { eid? }. Returns: { ok, status, freed_seat }. Required scope: hack:register (any tier).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| eid | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already include destructiveHint=true, and the description adds valuable detail: 'If you were already approved this revokes your roles and frees the seat for someone on the waitlist.' It also discloses the required scope and return fields, going beyond the annotation to explain the side effects and expected outputs.
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 concise, with a single focused sentence followed by compact arg/return/scope information. It front-loads the primary action, explains the key side effect, and then lists technical details efficiently without 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?
For a tool with one optional parameter, no output schema, and clear annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, when to use it, what it returns, and required scope. The only minor gap is the meaning of 'eid', but given the hackathon context, this is a small omission. Overall, the description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
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 zero description coverage, and the description only says 'Args: { eid? }' without explaining what 'eid' represents or how it should be used. While the optionality is clear, the semantics of 'eid' are not elaborated, leaving the agent to infer from context. The description does not compensate for the missing 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 tool's function with the verb 'Withdraw' and specifies the resource: a hackathon application. It also explains the consequence of withdrawing when already approved, which distinguishes it from related tools like apply or register. The title reinforces the purpose, making it unmistakable.
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 clear usage context: 'the polite thing to do the moment you know you cannot come.' It explains what happens in the approved case, giving guidance on when to invoke. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use it, but given the tool name and siblings, the purpose is clear enough.
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.