Skip to main content
Glama

Immersive Commons

by com.immersivecommons

What can I do here? (tool catalog + reachability for THIS token)

ic_capabilities
Read-only

In-band capability matrix: every registered MCP tool with its one-line description, required scope (null = any valid token), the minimum membership tier whose users can mint a token carrying that scope, and whether THIS caller's token can reach it right now ('reachable' | 'needs_scope:'). Use it to plan before calling scope-gated tools and to tell your human exactly which tier + scopes a token needs — remember scopes CANNOT be added to an existing token (a new one must be minted with the scope in the signup array). Available to any valid token — no extra scope. additional_gate (usually null) names a per-tenant ROLE the handler resolves that no scope expresses — today the floorcast floor-admin / super-admin writes. It is NOT folded into reachability, which is scope-derived only: this endpoint sees your scopes, never your floor roles, so a tool can read 'reachable' and still return forbidden if you don't hold the role. Args: none. Returns: { count, caller: { scopes }, tools: [{ name, description, required_scope, min_tier, reachability, additional_gate }] }.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description reveals a critical behavioral nuance: reachability is scope-derived and does not reflect floor roles, so a tool may appear reachable but still return forbidden. It also explains the 'additional_gate' field and that scopes cannot be added to existing tokens, providing rich 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.

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is a single dense paragraph with many clauses and parentheticals. It conveys valuable information, but its structure is not concise or easily scannable; breaking it into shorter sentences or bullet points would improve readability without losing content.

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 lacking an output schema, the description fully specifies the return shape ({ count, caller: { scopes }, tools: [...] }) and explains edge cases like the relationship between reachability and roles. It also clarifies the 'additional_gate' field, making the tool's behavior fully understandable without needing extra documentation.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing to document. The description explicitly states 'Args: none,' and the schema coverage is trivially 100%. Baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description confirms the absence without adding unnecessary detail.

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 provides an 'in-band capability matrix' listing every registered MCP tool with its description, required scope, minimum tier, and current token reachability. This distinguishes it from sibling tools, which perform domain-specific actions rather than cataloging.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly says to use it 'to plan before calling scope-gated tools' and to inform the human about required tiers and scopes. It also notes it's 'available to any valid token — no extra scope', giving clear guidance on access.

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