Skip to main content
Glama

Immersive Commons

by com.immersivecommons

Get your Funko Me unlock progress

ic_funko_progress
Read-only

The caller's OWN unlock snapshot: every catalog item, whether they have earned it, and per-condition progress so you can say '3 more commits' instead of 'locked'. Read degraded[] FIRST — it lists the signals that could not be read this pass, and any condition resting on one of those is UNKNOWN, not unmet. Telling a member with 400 commits that they need 5 more because GitHub timed out is the specific failure this field exists to prevent; a progress entry carries unknown: true for exactly that case. Args: {}. Returns: { ok, snapshot: { userId, computedAt, signals, granted[], states[{ item, unlocked, progress[{ condition, met, current, target, unknown }] }], degraded[] } }. Required scope: funko:read.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Despite readOnlyHint being set, the description adds crucial behavioral detail: degraded signals make conditions UNKNOWN, not unmet, and includes a concrete example of the failure mode (GitHub timeout causing false '5 more needed'). It also documents the unknown:true flag, which is beyond what annotations provide.

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?

The description opens with a crisp purpose statement and is logically organized, but the extended '400 commits' example is slightly verbose. Still, the illustration is valuable for understanding the unknown semantics, so it earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully enumerates the return shape, including nested fields and degraded[]. It also states the required scope (funko:read) and the critical caveat about degraded signals, making it self-sufficient for a no-parameter tool.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the description explicitly states 'Args: {}'. Since there is nothing to explain, the baseline of 4 is appropriate; no parameter ambiguity exists.

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 opens with 'The caller's OWN unlock snapshot: every catalog item, whether they have earned it, and per-condition progress' — a specific verb+resource statement that distinguishes this from sibling catalog/get tools. It clearly defines the tool as returning comprehensive progress data for the calling user.

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 clearly implies usage for retrieving the caller's own progress ('caller's OWN'), and instructs to read degraded[] first for correct interpretation. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this one, so it stops short of full guidance.

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