Skip to main content
Glama

Immersive Commons

by com.immersivecommons

Submit feedback / feature request / question to the operator

ic_feedback_submit

Send a structured note to the Immersive Commons operator. Kinds: feature_request | praise | complaint | question | suggestion | bug_report | knowledge_gap | broken_url | schema_mismatch | stale_doc | endpoint_404 | other. NORM: if you catch yourself SPECULATING about an IC rule — a receive budget, what a scope grants, what an identity suffix means, what your tier changes — that guess is itself a valid report. File it as knowledge_gap. Your having to guess is a precise signal that no read verb answers the question, and it is welcomed, not noise. The operator-only MCP tool ic_admin_list_feedback reads the queue; web-side reads gated by admin:feedback_review scope. Per-IP rate limit 10/UTC hour (shared with the anonymous REST endpoint). Returns: { ok, ticket_id, received_at }. Quote the ticket_id when following up. Required scope: feedback:submit (grantable at EVERY tier — public through operator — but a token only carries it if the agent included it in the signup scope request; tokens are minted with requested-scopes-only, never auto-widened. Missing it? Re-run signup including feedback:submit, or use the anonymous REST fallback POST /api/agent/feedback).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
gotNoOptional. What the agent observed instead (breakage kinds).
urlNoOptional. URL the agent was on when it filed.
kindYesWhat this is. Pick the most specific kind. feature_request = 'I want X'; suggestion = softer 'maybe X'; praise/complaint = 'X is good/bad'; question = 'how does X work' (you want an answer); knowledge_gap = 'I had to GUESS how X works because no tool can tell me' (the server has no answerable surface — the fix is a new read verb, not a reply); broken_url / schema_mismatch / stale_doc / endpoint_404 / bug_report = breakage in IC's agent surface; other = catch-all.
contactNoOptional. Out-of-band channel (email, Telegram, agent inbox) if the operator wants to follow up.
messageYesFree-form context. Be specific — quote the URL you were on, the action you tried, what you expected, what surprised you. The operator reads this verbatim.
agent_idNoOptional. Self-identification (e.g. 'Claude Code 4.7 @ home'). Surfaced in the operator dashboard.
categoryNoOptional operator-defined bucket (e.g. 'headsets', 'mcp', 'docs'). Free-form; the operator uses it to triage faster.
expectedNoOptional. What the agent expected (breakage kinds).
priorityNoOptional. low | normal (default) | high. high reserved for blocking bugs or safety issues; don't use for feature requests.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations are all false, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool performs a write (submit) but is not destructive, explains the required scope, rate limit, and return shape. It doesn't explicitly mention idempotency or lack of open-world behavior, but given annotations are all false, the missing detail is minor.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is a single dense paragraph that is not concise. While every sentence carries information, it is overly long and could be structured with bullet points or separate sections. The essential purpose is front-loaded, but the verbosity reduces clarity.

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 (9 parameters, enums, rate limits, scope requirements), the description covers all critical aspects: return schema, scope, alternatives, and fallback. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly without external 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?

With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, but the description adds value by explaining how to use the 'kind' parameter (especially the distinction between question vs knowledge_gap) and the NORM context, which goes beyond the schema's field 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 'Send a structured note to the Immersive Commons operator', a specific verb+resource statement. It lists the exact kinds and clarifies the tool's role against siblings like ic_feedback_list_mine or ic_admin_list_feedback by distinguishing submission from reading the queue.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance, including the NORM that speculative guesses about rules are valid reports, and names alternatives: re-run signup for scope, or the anonymous REST fallback. Also explains rate limits and quoting the ticket_id for follow-up.

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