Skip to main content
Glama

Immersive Commons

by com.immersivecommons

Get the application questions for a hackathon (self-describing)

ic_hack_application_form
Read-only

Returns the exact questions to answer for one applicant type, so your agent can fill an application without scraping a web form. Each question carries an id, a prompt, a kind (short/long/url/email/bool/choice), whether it is required, and a why explaining what the reviewer is actually looking for — answer to the why, not just the prompt. Also tells you which roles an approval grants, whether it consumes one of the capped seats, and who decides it. Applicant types: founder, engineer, solo_builder, team, designer, partner_delegate, mentor, judge, sponsor, volunteer, media. Answer keys in ic_hack_apply MUST match the question ids returned here. Args: { eid?, applicant_type }. Returns: { ok, form_version, applicant_type, questions[], grants_roles[], consumes_seat, decided_by }. Required scope: hack:read (any tier).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
eidNo
applicant_typeYesOne of: founder, engineer, solo_builder, team, designer, partner_delegate, mentor, judge, sponsor, volunteer, media.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, and the description adds substantial behavioral context: exact question fields, reviewer intent via 'why', required scope hack:read, seat consumption, and decision authority. No contradiction.

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 is long but front-loaded with a clear purpose, and every clause adds useful detail. The applicant-type list is somewhat redundant with the schema but acceptable given the breadth of information.

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?

For a read-only query tool with no output schema, the description covers the returned payload shape, question fields, usage context, required scope, and integration with ic_hack_apply. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The description repeats applicant_type values already present in the schema and only echoes 'Args: { eid?, applicant_type }'. It does not explain the meaning or role of the optional eid parameter, and schema coverage is only 50%, so the description fails to compensate for the undocumented eid.

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 'Returns the exact questions...' which names the specific action and resource. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like ic_hack_apply (which submits answers) and ic_hack_application_status (which checks status).

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?

It states the intended use case: 'so your agent can fill an application without scraping a web form' and instructs that answer keys in ic_hack_apply must match returned IDs. It lacks explicit alternatives or exclusions, but the context is 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