ic_headsets_admin_clear_oosOperator returns a unit to the available pool. Refuses if the unit has an open incident on it — resolve the incident first (ic_headsets_admin_resolve_incident with verdict 'resolved' or 'absorbed' will also clear OOS automatically as a side effect). Args: { unit_id }. Returns: { ok, message }. Required scope: admin:headsets_review.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| unit_id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses refusal condition and side effect of resolve_incident. Annotations already provide idempotent and non-destructive hints; description adds behavioral context but could mention what happens if unit already clear.
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?
Three concise sentences with no unnecessary words. Key information is front-loaded in the first sentence. Every sentence adds value.
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?
Despite lack of output schema and parameter details, the description covers purpose, usage conditions, side effects, and return structure. Sufficient for a simple tool with one parameter and strong annotations.
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?
Schema has 0% parameter description coverage, and description only restates 'Args: { unit_id }' without defining what unit_id represents. While the context implies it's a unit identifier, additional clarification would improve clarity.
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?
Clearly states 'returns a unit to the available pool' and differentiates from sibling tools like ic_headsets_admin_mark_oos and ic_headsets_admin_resolve_incident by specifying the action and refusal condition.
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?
Explicitly tells when not to use (if open incident exists) and provides alternative (resolve_incident with specific verdict). Also mentions required scope, giving clear guidance on prerequisites.
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.