Skip to main content
Glama

Immersive Commons

by com.immersivecommons

List events I could write a highlight about

floor10_list_claimable_events
Read-only

Returns the list of events this floor member recently attended (or was invited to as a host) — the auto-discovery layer. Use this BEFORE asking the human 'what event did you go to?'; show them this list and let them pick. Source: graph.yaml attendance ingest, enriched with canonical URLs from data/events.yaml. Args: { status_filter? (e.g. ['checked_in','attended']), limit? (default 25, max 100) }. Returns: { count, total, generated_at, events: ClaimableEvent[] }. ClaimableEvent fields: event_api_id, title, date (YYYY-MM-DD), status (invited|approved|going|checked_in|attended), role, url, program, episode, registered_at, source.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoDefault 25; max 100.
status_filterNoOptional. Filter to one or more statuses. E.g. ["checked_in","attended"] for "really went". Default: all statuses (incl. "invited" so hosts see their own events).

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so description adds value by stating the data source (graph.yaml attendance ingest, enriched from data/events.yaml) and default behavior of status_filter including invited events for hosts. No contradictions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single paragraph but conveys purpose, usage, source, parameters, and return shape efficiently. Slightly dense but well-organized for the tool's complexity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a list tool with 2 optional params and no output schema, the description provides return type (ClaimableEvent[]) and field details, making it self-contained. Sibling tools are numerous, but this description adequately stands alone.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds meaning beyond schema by explaining the status_filter default and providing an example (['checked_in','attended'] for 'really went'), enhancing semantics for agent use.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool returns a list of events for a floor member, with specific verb (returns) and resource (list of attended/invited events). It distinguishes itself by being the auto-discovery layer and mentions use before asking the human, setting it apart from siblings like floor10_submit_highlight.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives explicit when-to-use: 'Use this BEFORE asking the human what event did you go to?; show them this list and let them pick.' This is clear context-specific guidance, though it does not mention when not to use or name alternative tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Immersive Commons toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

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.

Naming Consistency3/5

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.

Tool Count1/5

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.

Completeness4/5

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.

Resources