Skip to main content
Glama

Immersive Commons

by com.immersivecommons

Apply for a hackathon seat (vetted — approval required)

ic_hack_apply

Submit an application. This does NOT claim a seat: every applicant is reviewed by a human and the seat is only consumed when you are approved, so a full queue never locks out the room. Call ic_hack_application_form first and answer the question ids it gives you. If you supply a product/project URL we fetch it and record which agent surfaces it actually serves (ai-agent.json, MCP, agent-card, llms.txt) for the reviewer — finding none is NOT a rejection, it is a normal starting point, but an inflated claim the probe contradicts is worse than an honest 'none yet'. Re-applying while still pending UPDATES your application rather than creating a second one, so a retry after a timeout is safe. Args: { eid?, applicant_type, answers: { : } }. Returns: { ok, application: { application_id, status, evidence[] } } or { ok:false, error:'bad_answers', missing[], invalid[] }. Required scope: hack:register (any tier).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
eidNo
answersYesKeyed by question id from ic_hack_application_form. Booleans as 'yes'/'no'.
applicant_typeYes

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations are all false, so the description carries full burden. It richly discloses key behaviors: seat is not claimed immediately, human review, re-applying updates rather than duplicates, URL fetching and evidence recording, and that missing product surfaces is normal. This far exceeds basic transparency.

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 lengthy but information-dense; every clause adds necessary context for correct use. It is front-loaded with the core action and flows logically through caveats. Slightly verbose but appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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 includes return structure, error formats, required scope, prerequisites, and edge cases like timeouts and pending updates. This makes it self-sufficient 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.

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is only 33%, but the description compensates with an explicit Args breakdown and explains that answers should match question IDs from the form. It adds semantic meaning about how answers and optional URL evidence affect the application, and clarifies booleans via schema note.

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 'Submit an application' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from other hackathon tools by explicitly noting 'This does NOT claim a seat' and the vetted/human-review process, differentiating it from registration or check-in 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?

Provides explicit prerequisite guidance: 'Call ic_hack_application_form first and answer the question ids it gives you.' It also explains the re-apply behavior and required scope. Does not explicitly name alternative tools to avoid, but the context is clear enough for selection.

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