Skip to main content
Glama

Immersive Commons

by com.immersivecommons

Fetch one agent-inbox thread + envelopes + audit

ic_agent_inbox_get_thread
Read-only

Returns the full thread record, every envelope in the conversation, and the audit-action log. Caller must be either the recipient (thread.parties.to.member_id matches token's member_id) OR the original sender (thread.parties.from.token_sha256 matches token's sha256). Otherwise returns 'thread_not_found' (404-shape — does not leak that a thread exists for someone else). Args: { thread_id: string (thr_) }. Returns: { ok, thread, envelopes, actions }. Required scope: agent:inbox:read.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
thread_idYesThread id from ic_agent_inbox_list_threads or ic_agent_inbox_send_envelope. Shape thr_<26-char base32>.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: the privacy mechanism of returning a 404-shape error to unauthorized callers, the structure of returned data (thread, envelopes, actions), and the authorization requirement. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, which is consistent.

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?

The description is concise and well-structured: it starts with the purpose, then authorization rules, privacy behavior, argument format, return structure, and required scope. Every sentence adds important information without redundancy.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains what the tool returns (ok, thread, envelopes, actions). It covers authorization, privacy, parameter format, and required scope. For a tool with a single parameter and clear behavior, this is complete.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The description mentions the parameter thread_id with its shape and source, but this does not add substantial meaning beyond the input schema, which already describes the parameter with the same constraints. With schema coverage at 100%, the description adds minimal extra value for parameter understanding.

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 explicitly states that the tool returns the full thread record, every envelope, and the audit-action log. This is a specific verb+resource combination. The name 'get_thread' is distinct from sibling tools like 'ic_agent_inbox_list_threads' (which lists summaries) and 'ic_agent_inbox_reply' (which sends a reply).

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 clearly specifies who can call the tool (recipient or original sender) and what happens if unauthorized (404, no leak). It also mentions the required scope 'agent:inbox:read'. While it does not explicitly compare to list_threads, the context is sufficient for an agent to decide when to invoke this tool.

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