Skip to main content
Glama

Immersive Commons

by com.immersivecommons

Get the full ranked commits leaderboard

ic_leaderboard_get_board
Read-only

Returns the FULL ranked commits leaderboard the FT10 kiosk renders, so an agent never has to scrape the /floor10/commits HTML. Each member carries { rank (1-based), handle, name, commits, private? }. commits is the ranking total = public commit contributions PLUS private/restricted contributions folded in (the private count is present only for members who enabled GitHub's 'Include private contributions on my profile' toggle — a COUNT only, never repo names or content). Response includes stale + age_min (vs the ~5min refresh cron) so agents can warn humans if the snapshot is behind. Args: { limit?: number, default 200, max 200 }. Required scope: membership:read.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoHow many ranked members to return. Default 200, capped at 200.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint: true, so the tool is safe. The description adds valuable behavioral details: that 'commits' includes private contributions only for users who enabled the toggle, that private is a count only without repo names, and that response includes 'stale' and 'age_min' to indicate snapshot freshness. No contradiction with annotations.

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 detailed yet efficient, with the core purpose upfront. Each sentence adds value (purpose, field details, staleness, parameter). It is not overly verbose given the complexity, but could be slightly tightened. A solid 4.

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 the lack of an output schema, the description thoroughly covers the returned fields, including edge cases (private contributions only when toggled) and staleness indicators. It also specifies the required scope, which is critical for authorization. This makes the tool fully understandable without external docs.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% for the single 'limit' parameter, with description in schema. The tool description adds context: default 200, max 200, and implies it caps results. This adds meaning beyond the schema's basic description, justifying a score slightly above baseline.

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 returns the full ranked commits leaderboard that the FT10 kiosk renders. It specifies the exact data returned (rank, handle, name, commits, private) and contrasts with scraping HTML, making the purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from sibling leaderboard tools like ic_leaderboard_get_status and ic_leaderboard_connect_github by focusing on the board data.

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 explicitly says agents should use this to avoid scraping, providing clear context. While it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or list alternatives, the sibling tools suggest different operations (e.g., connecting GitHub, setting opt-in). The required scope 'membership:read' further clarifies intended use. Lacks direct exclusions or alternative mentions, hence a 4.

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