Skip to main content
Glama

Immersive Commons

by com.immersivecommons

Submit a highlight to the moderation queue

floor10_submit_highlight

POST a HighlightStory for admin review. Same shape + same validation as the REST endpoint at /api/ingest/highlights/pending. Rate limit: 3 per token per UTC day. Re-submitting the same id refreshes the pending TTL (idempotent). Hard rules: no fabricated dates / quotes / member ids; news-wire third-person dek; candids first, posters last in images[]. See https://www.immersivecommons.com/docs/agent-submissions.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesSlug pattern YYYY-MM-DD-<member-slug>-<event-slug>. Lowercase, alphanumeric + hyphens.
dekYesNews-wire third-person, 1-2 sentences. No editorial verbs. No first person. No fabricated quotes.
dateYesDisplay ("MAY 08") or ISO date.
statsNoConvention: RSVPS / ORGANIZATION / ROLE.
actionYesVerb-clause completing "<member> <action> <event_title>". Lowercase. E.g. "spoke at", "hosted", "demoed at".
imagesYesPublic URLs only (not base64). Candids first, posters / Luma covers last. Lead card cycles through these.
event_urlNo
member_idNoSlug from data/members.yaml. The token attributes the submission server-side regardless.
event_titleYes
member_nameYesDisplay name as it should appear on the card.
image_focalsNoOptional sparse map of subject focal points in [0, 1] coords (top-left origin).

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Describes idempotent behavior and rate limits, but contradicts the idempotentHint=false annotation by stating re-submission is idempotent.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Concise, front-loaded purpose, every sentence adds information. No fluff.

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?

Covers submission rules, idempotency, rate limits, and validation patterns. References external docs. Sufficient for an agent to use correctly.

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?

Adds value beyond schema by specifying image ordering, date formats, and action examples. Schema coverage is 82%, so description compensates well.

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?

Clearly states 'POST a HighlightStory for admin review' and mentions submitting to moderation queue. Differentiates from sibling admin tools like ic_admin_approve_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?

Provides guidelines on idempotency, hard rules for content, and a reference to the REST endpoint. Could be more explicit on when to use alternatives but adequate.

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