Skip to main content
Glama

Immersive Commons

by com.immersivecommons

Your sponsor-credits checklist (what is on offer, what you have)

ic_hack_credits_list

Every sponsor credit at this event, how to claim each one, and YOUR mark against each. THIS TOOL REDEEMS NOTHING. There is no central claim endpoint and nothing on this MCP surface issues vendor credits — each offer's how field is the real path, and for three of them that path is asking a named human in the room. Read access: self_serve means a URL and sometimes a code your agent can drive; ask_person means there is no page and inventing one wastes your builder's time; none means that sponsor has nothing to give and none is coming, so stop hunting. Offers with claimable:false are the none ones and cannot be marked. Watch expires_on — Tavily's code dies at the end of day two. marks is keyed by offer_id; a MISSING key means unanswered, which is the normal starting state and not an error. Args: { eid? }. Returns: { ok, registered, offers[], marks, summary }. Required scope: hack:read (any tier). Marking needs a seat on the roster; reading the catalog does not.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
eidNo

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

The description contradicts the annotation readOnlyHint=false. The description repeatedly implies read-only behavior ('THIS TOOL REDEEMS NOTHING', 'reading the catalog does not' need a seat) while the annotation suggests the tool may mutate state. According to the rules, any contradiction yields a score of 1. This is a serious inconsistency that misleads the agent about side effects.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a dense wall of text with many critical details, but it lacks structural formatting. The opening sentence effectively front-loads the purpose, but the rest is a long stream of information that could be broken into bullet points or sections. While each sentence carries value, the lack of visual hierarchy reduces scannability. It is informative but not concise.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description compensates well by outlining the return shape ('Returns: { ok, registered, offers[], marks, summary }') and explaining key fields like `access`, `claimable`, `expires_on`, and `marks`. It also covers edge cases (missing marks, expiring codes) and required scope. The only gap is the unexplained `eid` parameter, but overall it provides nearly complete context for an agent to call the tool.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. Although it mentions 'Args: { eid? }', it provides no explanation of what `eid` is, how it is used, or what values are valid. This adds no semantic value beyond the schema's bare field name. The agent cannot infer the purpose or format of the parameter.

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's purpose: 'Every sponsor credit at this event, how to claim each one, and YOUR mark against each.' It identifies a specific resource (sponsor credits) and the action (listing/checklist). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling credit marking tool by explicitly saying it redeems nothing and that the real claim path is in each offer's `how` field. This makes its role unambiguous.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool and what it does not do: 'THIS TOOL REDEEMS NOTHING' and 'there is no central claim endpoint.' It explains how to interpret `access` values (self_serve vs ask_person vs none) and warns about `expires_on`. It also clarifies that missing marks are normal. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but it implies the scope and limits, which is sufficient for an agent to select it correctly.

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