Skip to main content
Glama

Immersive Commons

by com.immersivecommons

Run AI curation now on this floor (Floor-Admin, consequential)

floorcast_run_ai_curation

Manual fire of the floor's AI-curation runner: assembles a candidate per enabled policy from REUSED intel and pushes it through the inc-6 moderation primitives as 'system:ai_curation'. Non-floor10 AI floors land the candidate PENDING (operator-gated). Floor-Admin gated. Static floors return { ok:false, reason:'feature-not-available' }; floor10 is slug-fenced and ALSO denied (absolute in inc-7). De-dups against the active + pending lists so a re-run does not poison the pending queue. Args: none. Returns: a per-policy result list.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations provide minimal safety hints, but the description adds rich behavioral detail: it assembles candidates from intel, pushes through moderation, handles different floor types (landing pending or error), de-dupes to avoid queue pollution, and returns per-policy results. No contradiction 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is densely packed with essential information and front-loaded with the core action. While comprehensive, it could be slightly more concise; however, it effectively uses every sentence to convey necessary details.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (floor types, policies, moderation, dedup), the description covers most behavioral aspects but lacks detail on the exact structure of the per-policy result list. With no output schema, this omission limits completeness.

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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 4. The description redundantly states 'Args: none' but adds no new meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable.

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's action: 'Manual fire of the floor's AI-curation runner' with specific verb ('run') and resource ('AI curation'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'floorcast_preview_ai_curation' by emphasizing this is a commit action, and the title further reinforces the purpose.

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 provides context on when to use (manual fire) and when not to (static floors, floor10), along with authorization requirement (Floor-Admin gated). It does not explicitly name alternatives but implies differentiation from preview and policy-setting 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