Skip to main content
Glama

Immersive Commons

by com.immersivecommons

Traverse a folder: subfolders + files (member)

ic_folder_get
Read-only

Traverse one folder (or the vault ROOT if folder_id is omitted). Returns { folder, path (breadcrumb), subfolders[], files[] } where each file carries a download_url (GET it with your bearer). Recurse by calling this again with a subfolder's id. This is how you walk a shared folder tree. Args: { folder_id? }. Required scope: files:read (ic-member+).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
folder_idNoFolder id (d_...) to open. Omit for the vault root.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description fully discloses the return structure (folder, path, subfolders, files with download_url), the default behavior when folder_id is omitted (vault root), and the required scope. Annotations (readOnlyHint: true) are consistent with the read-only nature, and the description adds significant context 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is concise at four sentences with no extraneous information. The main action is stated first, and each sentence adds necessary detail. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description thoroughly documents the return shape and the recursion usage pattern. For a tool with one optional parameter, it provides complete guidance on how to use it effectively within the shared folder tree context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already provides a clear description for the single parameter folder_id (optional, defaults to vault root). The description repeats this but adds the id prefix format (d_...). With 100% schema coverage, the description adds minimal extra semantic value, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 traverses a folder and returns its subfolders and files, distinguishing it from sibling tools like ic_folder_create, ic_folders_list, etc. The verb 'traverse' and resource 'folder' are specific, and the phrase 'This is how you walk a shared folder tree' clarifies its unique role.

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 the recursion pattern ('Recurse by calling this again with a subfolder's id') and states the required scope. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool versus alternatives like ic_folders_list for listing all folders. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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