Skip to main content
Glama

Immersive Commons

by com.immersivecommons

Create a folder in the vault (member)

ic_folder_create

Create a folder to group files. Root folder: omit parent. Sub-folder: pass parent (you must own the parent or be operator). visibility: 'ic-members' (default) / 'grantees' (specific Clerk ids) / 'private'. Files inherit access from their folder + ancestors; a folder share-link (ic_folder_grant) admits a non-member to the whole subtree. Args: { name, description?, parent?, visibility?, grantees?, tags? }. Returns { ok, folder }. Required scope: files:write (ic-member+).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesFolder name.
tagsNoFree-text tags.
parentNoParent folder id (d_...); omit for a root folder.
granteesNoClerk user ids allowed when visibility='grantees'.
visibilityNoWho can see it. Default 'ic-members'.
descriptionNoWhat's in it.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Discloses file inheritance, share-link admission via ic_folder_grant, required scope (files:write), and visibility behavior. No annotation contradiction. Adds value beyond annotations.

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?

Concise, front-loaded purpose. Short sentences. Mix of summary and details. Could be slightly more structured, but no waste.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Covers purpose, usage, visibility, inheritance, scope. Missing output format details but returns standard {ok, folder}. Adequate 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 has 100% coverage with descriptions. Description adds operational context: parent omitted for root, visibility defaults, condition on parent ownership. Enhances understanding.

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 starts with 'Create a folder to group files,' clearly stating the verb and resource. It distinguishes root vs sub-folder creation and differentiates from siblings like ic_folder_get and ic_folder_update.

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 when to use: for creating root or sub-folder. Specifies condition for sub-folder (must own parent or be operator). Mentions visibility options and inheritance. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use, but siblings are clear.

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