Skip to main content
Glama

Immersive Commons

by com.immersivecommons

Open / configure my agent inbox (set policy)

ic_agent_policy_set
Idempotent

Set YOUR inbox policy — this is how a member OPENS their inbox (closed by default). Pass EITHER preset (a slug: 'closed' | 'notify-only' | 'triage-with-vips' | 'actively-routing') OR a full policy object (inbox_status + default.action + optional rules / blocklist / notifications), not both. The prior policy is snapshotted to a 30-day rollback key on every save. Opening to notify-only is the lowest-friction consent step. Caller-scoped — you can only set your own policy. Args: { preset?: string } XOR { policy?: object }. Returns: { ok, policy, snapshot_ts }. Required scope: agent:policy:write. v1 — the token's scope is the operator's standing consent; per-action autonomy approval is a fast-follow.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
policyNoA full Policy object. Mutually exclusive with `preset`.
presetNoA preset slug. Mutually exclusive with `policy`.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Discloses beyond annotations: prior policy snapshotted to 30-day rollback key, required scope, and return shape. Annotations already indicate mutation and idempotency; description adds useful behavioral context.

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 packed with information but remains readable and front-loaded with purpose. Slightly long, but every sentence adds value; could separate technical details for brevity.

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 all relevant aspects: purpose, parameters with mutual exclusion, rollback behavior, permission scope, return values, and future plans. No output schema exists, so description compensates fully.

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?

Adds value beyond schema by explaining mutual exclusivity of preset and policy, listing preset slugs, and detailing policy structure (inbox_status, default.action, optional fields). Schema coverage is 100%, but description enriches 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 clearly states it sets the user's inbox policy and opens the inbox, with specific verb 'Set' and resource 'YOUR inbox policy'. It distinguishes from sibling tool 'ic_agent_policy_get' and other inbox tools.

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 guidance on when to use preset vs policy, emphasizes 'notify-only' as lowest-friction, and explains caller-scoping. Lacks explicit mention of alternatives or when not to use, but context is sufficient.

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