Skip to main content
Glama

Immersive Commons

by com.immersivecommons

Request an event on the Immersive Commons floor

ic_events_request

Propose an event by submitting Luma-shaped details. The request is enqueued as a 'save the date' draft for operator review at /floor10/admin/events — approval is the gate; this NEVER auto-creates a public Luma event. After an operator approves, IC staff create the live Luma event from your details and the kiosk card upgrades automatically. Args: { title, start (ISO-8601, future), end?, location?, description?, cover_url?, capacity?, visibility?: 'public'|'members', host?, contact?, slideshow_url? }. Returns: { ok, id, status: 'pending' }. Required scope: events:request (ic-member+).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
endNoEvent end as an ISO-8601 datetime. Must be after start.
hostNoHost / organizer display name.
startYesEvent start as an ISO-8601 datetime, e.g. 2026-07-01T18:00:00-07:00. Must be in the future.
titleYesEvent title.
contactNoHow IC reaches you to confirm (email / Telegram / etc.).
capacityNoRequested capacity; 0 or omitted = unlimited.
locationNoVenue / address. Defaults to FT10 · Immersive Commons if omitted.
cover_urlNoCover image URL (http/https).
visibilityNoRequested Luma visibility.
descriptionNoWhat the event is about.
slideshow_urlNoOptional accompanying deck URL.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description goes beyond the sparse annotations by detailing the workflow: request enqueued as a draft, NO auto-creation, approval process, and automatic kiosk card upgrade. It also specifies the required scope and return shape. However, it does not discuss idempotency or rate limits, which are not covered by annotations either.

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 a single well-structured paragraph covering purpose, behavior, parameter list, return type, and scope. Every sentence is informative with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the main action and quickly explains the non-obvious behavior.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (11 parameters, no output schema), the description is highly complete. It explains the full workflow, input requirements, return shape, and required scope. The absence of an output schema is compensated by describing the return object. The description leaves little ambiguity for the agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by noting that parameters are 'Luma-shaped details', specifying that 'end' is optional (though schema already marks it not required), and providing a default for 'location' (FT10 Immersive Commons). This extra context helps the agent understand usage beyond the 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 uses specific verbs ('Propose an event') and clearly identifies the resource ('on the Immersive Commons floor'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by explaining that this is a proposal that goes through operator review, unlike admin approval tools or read-only event listing 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?

The description explicitly states when to use the tool (to submit an event proposal) and what it does NOT do ('NEVER auto-creates a public Luma event'). It also mentions the required scope. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for different scenarios (e.g., using ic_events_get for existing events).

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