Skip to main content
Glama

Immersive Commons

by com.immersivecommons

Request a 3D print from the IC print farm (member)

ic_prints_submit

File a print request with the Floor 10 print farm. Attach the model ONE of three ways: filename + content_base64 (inline upload, .stl/.3mf/.obj/.step/.stp/.amf/.ply/.gcode/.bgcode/.zip, ~3.2MB max raw — base64 inflates 4/3 against a ~4.5MB request-body cap), file_id (a vault file you can read), or link_url (https link to a hosted model, e.g. Printables) — link_url may also accompany either file path. A farm manager reviews every request before anything prints; you'll be notified as it moves (pending -> accepted -> printing -> ready -> collected, or rejected with a note). Args: { title, details? (dimensions / tolerances / purpose), material? (default PLA), color? (default any), quantity? (1..20, default 1), file_id?, filename?, content_base64?, content_type?, link_url? }. Returns: { ok, id, status: 'pending', open_ahead, file_id? }. Rate: 10 requests per caller per UTC day. Required scope: prints:submit (ft-member+).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
colorNoColor wish. Default 'any'.
titleYesWhat you want printed, in a line.
detailsNoAnything the farm should know: dimensions, tolerances, infill, deadline, what it's for.
file_idNoA vault file id (f_...) you can read. Mutually exclusive with content_base64.
filenameNoModel filename for the inline upload (required with content_base64).
link_urlNohttps link to a hosted model (Printables / Thingiverse / ...).
materialNoMaterial wish, e.g. PLA / PETG / TPU / carbon-fiber. Default PLA.
quantityNoHow many copies (1..20). Default 1.
content_typeNoMIME type of the inline upload (default application/octet-stream).
content_base64NoModel bytes, base64-encoded. Max 25MB decoded. Mutually exclusive with file_id.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

No safety annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the review sequence (pending -> accepted -> printing -> ready -> collected or rejected), the farm-manager review requirement, the rate limit, the required technology, the upload size cap, and the base64 inflation behavior, far beyond annotations present.

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 in the description earns its place: core action, upload modes, stability constraints, workflow, return shape, rate limit, and scope. Structurally it uses 'Args:' and 'Returns:' markers for quick scanning, with no repeated or irrelevant content.

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 10-parameter producing waste with no output schema, the description is essentially self-sufficient: it defines parameters, possible upload methods, size constraints, default behavior, return payload, authentication scope, rate limit, and human review workflow. Omission is explicit error handling for limit violations, but the included guidance is complete enough for an agent to understand what the tool does and how to invoke it.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description still adds meaning: it explains the three mutually exclusive way to attach a new object, the allowed file formats, the 3.2MB limit vs payload cap, defaults for material/color/quantity, and that link_url may accompany file_id or filename. This extra value goes well beyond what the schema fields.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'File a print request with the Floor 10 print farm.' It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the nearby sibling ic_prints_submit_on_behalf, though the '(member)' in the title and the required scope provide some separation.

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 text provides clear context for when this tool is used: submitting a print job, with details about attachment methods, built-in review workflow, and member scope. It does not however name alternative tools or state explicit exclusions for sibling ic_prints_submit_on_behalf or ic_prints_update.

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