Skip to main content
Glama

Immersive Commons

by com.immersivecommons

Update a folder's metadata (member)

ic_folder_update
Idempotent

Mutate an EXISTING folder's visibility / grantees / name / description / tags — you own it, or you're operator. Owner and parent (its place in the tree) can never change here. Only the fields you pass are touched; omit a field to leave it as-is. Args: { folder_id, visibility?: 'ic-members'|'grantees'|'private', grantees?: string[], name?: string, description?: string, tags?: string[] }. Returns: { ok, folder }. Required scope: files:write (ic-member+; only the owner or an operator).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoFolder name. Omit to leave unchanged.
tagsNoFree-text tags. Omit to leave unchanged.
granteesNoClerk user ids allowed when visibility='grantees'. Omit to leave unchanged.
folder_idYesThe folder id (d_...) to update.
visibilityNoWho can see it. Omit to leave unchanged.
descriptionNoWhat's in it. Omit to leave unchanged.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that only passed fields are touched (partial update), returns {ok, folder}, and lists allowed visibility values. While consistent with annotations, it provides useful extra context.

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 sentences plus concise parameter list, front-loading the main action and scope. Every sentence contributes essential information without 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?

Despite no output schema, the description specifies the return format, required scope, ownership criteria, and immutable fields. It fully covers the tool's behavior for informed usage.

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%, but the description clarifies parameter behavior: omission leaves unchanged, grantees are Clerk user IDs applicable only when visibility='grantees', and folder_id pattern 'd_...'. This adds value beyond schema 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 specifies the action ('Mutate'), resource ('EXISTING folder'), and fields (visibility, grantees, name, description, tags). It distinguishes from sibling tools like ic_folder_create, ic_folder_get, etc., by focusing on updating metadata and noting that owner/parent cannot change.

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?

The description states preconditions (you own the folder or are an operator), required scope (files:write), and what cannot be changed (owner, parent). This helps the agent decide when to use this tool versus creating or granting access.

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