ic_leaderboard_set_optinToggle publicMetadata.leaderboardOptIn. Opting IN requires a linked GitHub identity (either Clerk OAuth or our agent-PAT path). Opting OUT is unconditional. Args: { optIn: boolean }. Returns: { ok, optIn, github_username? }. Required scope: leaderboard:manage.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| optIn | Yes | true to appear on the kiosk leaderboard, false to hide. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and not destructive. Description adds important context: requires 'leaderboard:manage' scope, GitHub identity for opt-in, and return shape. No contradictions with 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?
Three concise sentences with no wasted words. Front-loaded with action, then conditions, then args/returns/scope. Ideal length for a simple toggle tool.
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?
Given simple boolean parameter, no output schema, and good annotations, the description covers all essential: action, prerequisites, required scope, return fields. Could mention that publicMetadata is updated, but not necessary for agent usage.
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?
Input schema covers 100% of parameter with clear description. Description repeats 'Args: { optIn: boolean }' and adds return info, but adds no new parameter-specific meaning beyond schema. Baseline 3 applies.
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?
Description clearly states 'Toggle publicMetadata.leaderboardOptIn' and distinguishes opt-in vs opt-out conditions. Differentiates from sibling tools like ic_leaderboard_get_board (read) and ic_leaderboard_connect_github (connect GitHub).
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 states when to use: to opt in or out of leaderboard. Provides prerequisite for opt-in (linked GitHub identity) and that opt-out is unconditional. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools, but context is clear.
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.