Skip to main content
Glama

Immersive Commons

by com.immersivecommons

Check out a PICO unit

ic_headsets_checkout

Atomically claims a PICO unit for the calling user. Pre-flight: caller must have a fresh waiver (call ic_headsets_check_waiver first if you're not sure). Per-member NX lock prevents double-lending. Returns the new lend_id + due_back_at. Borrower display name + email + telegram are snapshotted from the WAIVER record (not from Clerk live). Args: { unit_id: 'IC1'..'IC8' }. Returns: { ok, lend_id, due_back_at }. Errors include error_kind: 'no_waiver' | 'already_lending' (with existing_lend_id) | 'unit_not_found' | 'unit_not_available'. Required scope: headsets:lend.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
unit_idYesUnit id, e.g. 'IC1'. Case-insensitive.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Discloses atomic claim behavior, return values (lend_id, due_back_at), data snapshotting from waiver record, error kinds, and required scope. Annotations don't provide much (readOnly false, destructive false), so description fills in well. Could add more on timeout or cancellations, but sufficient.

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 concise at around 90 words, front-loaded with the main action. Each sentence adds value: atomic claim, pre-flight, locking, return format, args, errors, scope. Slightly dense but no waste.

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 1 parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers return values, error cases, scope requirement, and pre-flight condition. No gaps remain for an agent to understand how to invoke the tool correctly.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% with a well-documented unit_id parameter. The description adds a range hint ('IC1'..'IC8') but that's minor. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema already handles parameter semantics.

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 it 'atomically claims a PICO unit for the calling user.' The verb 'checkout' is reinforced with 'claims' and the resource is a PICO unit. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ic_headsets_return and ic_headsets_get_my_lend.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly mentions pre-flight requirement: caller must have a fresh waiver, advises calling ic_headsets_check_waiver if unsure. Also notes per-member NX lock prevents double-lending, which indicates when not to use (if already lending). Alternative sibling tool ic_headsets_check_waiver is referenced for context.

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