ic_prints_cancelCancel YOUR OWN print request while it's still pending or accepted (once it's printing, talk to the farm). Args: { request_id, note? }. Returns: { ok, request }. Required scope: prints:submit (ft-member+; submitter only).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| note | No | Why you're canceling (helps the farm). | |
| request_id | Yes | The request id (pj_...) to cancel. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Adds context beyond annotations: cancellation only works for own requests, only during specific states. The destructiveHint annotation is already present, and the description reinforces it without contradiction. Missing info on reversibility or consequences, but adequate.
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?
Two sentences, highly compact. Front-loads the core action and conditions. Every word adds value, including returns and scope. No redundancy.
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 simple cancellation tool with no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, when to use, parameters, return shape, required scope, and caller restrictions. Complete and self-contained.
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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description repeats the schema descriptions verbatim, providing no additional meaning. It correctly lists the parameters but adds no new insight.
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 verb 'Cancel', the resource 'print request', and specifies the scope 'YOUR OWN' and conditions 'pending or accepted'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ic_prints_submit and ic_prints_update by focusing on cancellation.
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 to use (while pending or accepted) and when not to use (once printing, talk to farm). Also specifies required scope and who can use (submitter only). Clear alternatives provided.
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.