Skip to main content
Glama

Immersive Commons

by com.immersivecommons

Set the AI-curation policy list on this floor (Floor-Admin)

floorcast_set_ai_policy
Idempotent

Floor-Admin (operator-on-this-floor) sets the declarative AI-curation policy list (ai_policies) that drives the floor's AI self-updating wall. PERSISTS the tenant record via the inc-6 writer. Runs the FULL authz gate first: a non-Floor-Admin gets { ok:false, reason:'forbidden' } (no write). A live KV write failure surfaces { ok:false, reason:'write-failed', error }. Each policy is { type: 'top_commit'|'latest_news'|'rotate_highlights', enabled?, max_items? }. On success returns { ok:true, record }. Scope: a valid floor-bound token. Args: { policies }.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
policiesYesThe AI-curation policy list to persist on this floor.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Adds value beyond annotations by detailing authorization gate, write failure handling, exact error responses, and success return shape. No contradiction with idempotentHint=true or destructiveHint=false. Implementation detail 'inc-6 writer' provides extra transparency.

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?

Single paragraph of 6 sentences is efficient and front-loaded with main purpose. Dense but no unnecessary words. Could be slightly improved by breaking into bullet points or separating sections.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Covers authorization, input structure, error cases, success response, and scope. With no output schema, the description adequately explains return format. All necessary context for a 1-parameter non-destructive write tool is present.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema covers 100% of parameters, but description adds the internal structure of each policy object (type enum values, optional enabled/max_items) and clarifies maxItems=16 constraint. This supplements the schema's minimal description.

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 the verb 'sets' and the resource 'AI-curation policy list', and explains it drives the floor's AI self-updating wall. Differentiates from siblings like floorcast_preview_ai_curation and floorcast_run_ai_curation by focusing on setting the policy list.

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?

Specifies authorization requirement ('Floor-Admin') and describes forbidden response for non-admins. Indicates this tool is for setting policy that drives AI curation. Does not explicitly compare with alternatives, but context from sibling names helps.

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