Skip to main content
Glama

Immersive Commons

by com.immersivecommons

Hand in a photo you took at the event

ic_hack_photo_submit

Submit one photo your human shot at the event. IT IS NOT PUBLISHED BY THIS CALL — it lands pending and an organiser decides, and no argument you pass can change that. Send the image as base64 in image_base64 (a data: URL is accepted and unwrapped); JPEG, PNG, WebP, HEIC, HEIF and AVIF are read, up to 8MB decoded. Send the bytes your human actually has — do not re-encode a photo to make it fit, crop it, or generate one; a gallery of things nobody was at is worse than a small gallery. caption says what is happening in the frame and credit is how your human wants to be named (a handle, an org, or omitted for none). YOU MUST HAVE A SEAT: a caller not on the roster is refused, and the fix is a seat rather than a retry. One member may hand in 60 photos at an event. Args: { eid?, image_base64, content_type?, filename?, caption?, credit? }. Returns: { ok, photo, note }. Required scope: hack:submit (any tier), plus a seat on the roster.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
eidNo
creditNoHow to name the photographer.
captionNo
filenameNo
content_typeNoe.g. image/jpeg. Inferred from a data: URL when omitted.
image_base64YesBase64 image bytes, or a base64 data: URL.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only indicate mutating, non-idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds critical non-obvious facts: the photo is not published by this call, pending status cannot be overridden by arguments, a roster seat is required, formats and size limits apply, and the 60-photo cap exists. This is strong disclosure beyond annotations.

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?

Every sentence carries operational, policy, or ethical guidance that affects how the tool should be invoked. The core action is front-loaded, and the Args/Returns summary closes the description efficiently. Though dense, nothing feels like padding.

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?

Given no output schema, the description still states the return shape and explains prerequisites, submission behavior, file constraints, authentication needs, and rate limits. Optional eid/filename semantics are minor because they are not required for correct invocation. This is a highly complete definition for a complex 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?

The schema covers only some parameters; the description deepens image_base64 with data: URL acceptance, unwrapping, supported formats, and 8MB decoded limit. It also explains caption content and credit naming options. eid and filename remain lightly explained, but they are optional and the required parameter is covered in depth.

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?

States a specific action and resource: 'Submit one photo your human shot at the event.' It is clearly the photo-submission tool and is not easily confused with siblings like ic_hack_submit or ic_hack_photo_review because the subject, verb, and target are explicit.

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 clear context: photos go to pending, an organizer decides, the caller must have a roster seat, and there is a 60-photo limit. It also warns against uploading non-genuine photos. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for other upload types, so it stops just short of full when-not-to-use 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