Skip to main content
Glama

Immersive Commons

by com.immersivecommons

Cheap dependency health probe (KV / Blob / RAG / weather)

ic_health
Read-only

Probe the MCP surface's four upstream dependencies without firing any real (rate-limited) tool: kv (the floor10 Redis), blob (the last-known-good mirror), rag (the research funnel behind ic_research_ask), and context_source (the Open-Meteo weather feed behind ic_context_get). Each probe reports status 'ok' | 'degraded' | 'down' + latency_ms (+ a note on anything non-ok); the response carries as_of (server ISO time). Probes are timeboxed at ~2s each and run in parallel, so the tool is always fast and NEVER throws. Available to any valid token — no extra scope. Args: none. Returns: { kv, blob, rag, context_source, as_of }.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description adds significant behavioral traits beyond annotations: timeboxed at ~2s per probe, parallel execution, guarantees of no throwing, and available to any token. Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, but description enhances transparency. 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is succinct and well-structured: starts with the overall purpose, then details each dependency, behavior, and return shape. Every sentence provides essential information with no fluff.

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 parameterless tool with no output schema, the description is fully complete. It describes the response structure (status, latency, note for each probe, plus as_of) and the behavior (timeboxing, parallel, no throw). No missing information.

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?

There are zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. With no parameters, the baseline score is 4; the description does not need to add 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 probes four specific upstream dependencies (kv, blob, rag, context_source) and explains what each is (e.g., 'the floor10 Redis'). This distinguishes it from all sibling tools, none of which are health probes.

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 explains that the tool is for probing health without firing real (rate-limited) tools, is always fast, and never throws. It implies usage context but does not explicitly state when not to use it or offer alternatives, though the tool is unique among siblings.

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