Skip to main content
Glama

Immersive Commons

by com.immersivecommons

RSVP the calling user to an IC event

ic_events_rsvp

Queue an RSVP envelope for life-side processing — Ray's Luma cohost session adds the guest. This returns 'queued', NOT 'Luma confirmed.' The human will get a Luma email on the next processor cycle. Rate-limited to 10/token/UTC day; idempotent via 7-day dedupe on (event_url, user). Args: { event_url: string, email: string, name?: string }. The agent MUST supply email explicitly — the server doesn't derive it for agent callers (trust boundary). Required scope: events:rsvp.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoDisplay name for the Luma guest list. Optional.
emailYesEmail to add as a guest. Required for agent callers.
event_urlYesCanonical Luma URL of the event.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

Description claims idempotency via 7-day dedupe, but annotations set idempotentHint: false, creating a direct contradiction. This undermines trust. While it adds useful detail like rate limiting and async processing, the contradiction forces a low score.

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?

Description is comprehensive yet efficient, with each sentence providing essential information. Purpose is front-loaded, followed by behavior, constraints, and parameter details. No wasted words.

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?

The description fully covers purpose, behavior, side effects, rate limiting, deduplication, required scope, and parameter usage. Given the simple schema and no output schema, it provides all necessary context for correct invocation.

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 covers 100% of parameters. Description adds agent-specific nuance: email must be explicitly supplied for agent callers, and name is optional. This adds value beyond the schema fields.

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?

Description clearly states it queues an RSVP envelope for an IC event, distinguishing it from read-only event tools like ic_events_get and ic_events_list_upcoming. It provides specific context about Ray's Luma cohost session and the async nature.

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 explicit guidance: returns 'queued' not confirmed, rate limit of 10/token/UTC day, idempotent via 7-day dedupe, required scope events:rsvp, and that agent must supply email. Lacks explicit alternative tools or when-not-to-use, but siblings are clearly different.

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