Skip to main content
Glama

Immersive Commons

by com.immersivecommons

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

ic_folder_grant
Idempotent

Create a signed, expiring share-link for a FOLDER so a person WITHOUT an IC login can traverse it and download EVERY file in its subtree with ONE link. Only the folder's owner or an operator can share it. The link opens a browsable page; the api_url is the agent-traversable JSON entry (GET /api/folders/shared?grant=). Args: { folder_id, subject?, ttl_seconds? (default 7d, max 30d) }. Returns { ok, folder_id, name, link, api_url, expires_at }. Required scope: files:write (ic-member+).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
subjectNoAudit label for who the link is for.
folder_idYesThe folder id (d_...) to share.
ttl_secondsNoLink lifetime seconds. Default 7d, max 30d.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, etc.), the description adds crucial details: only owner/operator can share, the link is signed/expiring, default and max TTL, required scope and return fields. No contradiction with 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 three well-structured sentences. It front-loads the purpose, then adds permissions and behavior, and concludes with args and return format. Every sentence adds value with no fluff.

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 moderate complexity (3 params, no output schema), the description covers purpose, permissions, parameter details, return fields, scope, and caveats. No output schema needed as return fields are listed. Complete for reliable 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?

The input schema covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds clarity on optionality and defaults (ttl_seconds default 7d, max 30d), and lists args in a concise format, adding modest value beyond the schema.

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 folder that allows non-members to traverse and download files. It distinguishes from sibling tools like ic_files_grant (likely for files) and other folder tools.

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 specifies that only the folder owner or operator can share, and that the link is for non-members. While it doesn't explicitly compare to alternatives like ic_files_grant, the context is clear enough for most agents to infer when to use this tool.

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