Skip to main content
Glama

Immersive Commons

by com.immersivecommons

Toggle a feature module ENABLED on this floor (Floor-Admin)

floorcast_set_feature_enabled
Idempotent

Floor-Admin (operator-on-this-floor) toggles a module in the floor's ENABLED set; a module must be AVAILABLE on the floor to enable. PERSISTS the tenant record (inc-6). Runs the FULL authz + availability gate first: a non-Floor-Admin, or enabling a module not available on the floor, gets { ok:false, reason:'forbidden' } (no write). A live KV write failure surfaces { ok:false, reason:'write-failed', error } (no 500). On success returns { ok:true, record } (the persisted next-record). Scope: a valid floor-bound token. Args: { module, enabled }. floorcast_effective_features reflects the toggle on the next read.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
moduleYesModule id (one of the 8 enum modules).
enabledYestrue to enable, false to disable.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations are sparse (idempotentHint=true), but description adds rich behavioral details: persistence, authz gate, specific error responses (forbidden, write-failed), and no 500. 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?

Description is comprehensive but slightly verbose. Front-loaded with core action, then details. Could trim minor redundancy, but overall efficient.

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?

No output schema, but description fully explains return values (success, errors) and side effects (floorcast_effective_features update). Complete for the tool's complexity.

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 covers 100% of parameters, so baseline is 3. Description adds value by mentioning that module is one of 8 enums (not in schema) and the availability precondition, improving clarity.

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 action (toggles a module in the floor's ENABLED set), the resource (module enabled set for a floor), and the precondition (module must be AVAILABLE). It distinguishes from sibling tools like floorcast_set_feature_availability.

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 the target user (Floor-Admin) and precondition (module must be available). Does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but context is clear.

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