Skip to main content
Glama

Immersive Commons

by com.immersivecommons

Mint a share link for a non-member (member)

ic_files_grant
Idempotent

Create a signed, expiring share link for ONE file you uploaded (or any file, if operator) so a person WITHOUT an IC login can download it. The link embeds a grant bound to that single file id and works until it expires. Args: { file_id, subject?: string (audit label, e.g. who it's for), ttl_seconds?: number (default 7 days, max 30 days) }. Returns: { ok, file_id, filename, link, expires_at }. Required scope: files:write (ic-member+; only the uploader or an operator can share a given file).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
file_idYesThe file id (f_...) to share.
subjectNoAudit label for who the link is for (e.g. an email or name).
ttl_secondsNoLink lifetime in seconds. Default 7 days, max 30 days.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description discloses key behaviors: the link is bound to a single file, expires, and requires the uploader or operator role. It adds value beyond annotations (which only indicate idempotency) by clarifying scope and link properties. However, it does not address idempotency or error cases.

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 concise (104 words) and well-structured: purpose, args, return value, scope requirement. Every sentence serves a clear function, with no redundancy.

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 3 parameters (1 required), 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description fully covers inputs and outputs (returns ok, file_id, filename, link, expires_at). It also includes required scope, making it self-contained for the agent.

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 the schema already describes parameters. The description adds context for file_id (ownership constraint) and lists defaults (ttl_seconds). This extra semantic detail aids agent understanding beyond the schema alone.

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 creates a signed expiring share link for a single file, targeting non-members. It specifies the resource (file), action (create share link), and scope (uploaded file or any if operator), distinguishing it from siblings like ic_files_get or ic_folder_grant.

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 explains when to use: to share a file with someone without an IC login. It implies when not to use (if the person has a login, they could use other tools) and states the required scope and permissions. However, it does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusion cases.

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