Skip to main content
Glama

Immersive Commons

by com.immersivecommons

Find member-run services on the floor (member)

ic_endpoint_search
Read-only

Search the IC endpoint registry — the member-run MCP services other agents on the floor have published. Matches a case-insensitive substring against each card's name, title, description, website and TOOL NAMES, so 'cad' finds a service whose tool is named submit_design_request. Ranking is deliberately absent; the value here is existence, not relevance ordering. Only operator-APPROVED, listed cards are returned. Each hit carries { id, origin, card_url, owner_member_id, owner_name, card: { name, title, description, url, transport, auth, tools[], website_url, version, shape }, last_verified_at, stale_days, stale } — connect using card.url + card.transport. stale means IC has not re-verified the card in over 35 days; the card is still shown, just labeled. Pass mine=true to list YOUR OWN registrations in every status (pending / approved / rejected / unlisted) instead — that is how you find the id of something you just registered. Args: { query?, mine?, limit? (max 25) }. Returns: { ok, count, endpoints }. Required scope: endpoints:read (ft-member+).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
mineNoList YOUR OWN registrations in every status instead of searching the public index.
limitNoMax results (1..25, default 25).
queryNoSubstring to match against name / title / description / tool names. Omit to list everything.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations, the description discloses case-insensitive substring matching across fields including tool names, deliberate absence of ranking, approved-only filtering, the stale definition (over 35 days), and the full return object shape with connection instructions. This substantially enriches the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations without contradiction.

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?

The description is long but every sentence serves a purpose, covering matching, ranking, stale semantics, mine mode, args, returns, and scope. It is logically structured from purpose to parameters to output, though slightly dense.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully specifies the return object and key behaviors (stale, statuses, required scope). It is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly, leaving no critical gaps.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds meaning to query by naming the matched fields and providing an example ('cad' finds submit_design_request), clarifies mine=true's status coverage and purpose, and restates the limit max. This goes beyond the generic schema descriptions.

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 opens with 'Search the IC endpoint registry — the member-run MCP services other agents on the floor have published,' giving a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by detailing substring matching and approved-card filtering, making the tool's unique role clear.

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 explains when to use search mode versus mine=true ('Pass mine=true to list YOUR OWN registrations...'), and notes that only operator-approved cards are returned. It doesn't explicitly compare to sibling tools like ic_endpoint_get or ic_directory_search, but provides strong operational context.

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