Skip to main content
Glama

Immersive Commons

by com.immersivecommons

Stage a print for a member to confirm (brokering service)

ic_prints_submit_on_behalf

Stage a print you designed FOR an IC member. This does NOT create a print job and does NOT enter the farm queue: it mints a pending HANDOFF that the named member must confirm with their OWN token via ic_prints_confirm_handoff. On their confirm the job is created and attributed to THEM — the member_id you pass is only ever a match predicate, never an identity we write with, so naming a member you have no relationship with just produces a record they can ignore until it expires (7 days). Model transport: link_url (https) or file_id (a vault file the MEMBER can read — final read-authorization is enforced as the member at confirm time, so a file only you can read will fail then). Inline bytes are not accepted. Args: { target_member_id, title, details?, material?, color?, quantity? (1..20), file_id?, link_url?, quote?, source_job_id? }. Returns: { ok, handoff_id, status: 'pending', expires_at, confirm_with }. Rate: 25/broker/UTC day, max 5 pending per member. Required scope: prints:submit_on_behalf (ic-member+).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
colorNoColor wish. Default 'any'.
quoteNoWhat you quoted the member. Shown to them at confirm time — this is the term they consent to.
titleYesWhat is being printed, in a line.
originNoProvenance for this job. IC RECORDS THESE AS YOUR CLAIMS AND VERIFIES NONE OF THEM — the stored record is stamped ic_verified:false and every surface renders them as 'claimed by <service>'. approved_by/approved_at are how your human-review guarantee survives the hop into IC's queue; send them together or not at all. Queryable by farm managers via ic_prints_find_by_origin.
detailsNoDimensions, tolerances, purpose — anything the farm should know.
file_idNoVault file id (f_...) the MEMBER can read.
link_urlNohttps link to the hosted model.
materialNoMaterial wish. Default PLA.
quantityNoHow many copies (1..20). Default 1.
source_job_idNoYour own job id, echoed back for reconciliation. Opaque to IC.
target_member_idYesIC member id of the member this print is FOR. Matched against the confirming caller's own token; never used as a write identity.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses critical behavioral details beyond the bare annotations: it doesn't write identity, records expire after 7 days, has rate limits (25/broker/UTC day) and pending cap, required scope, transport restrictions (no inline bytes), and when file authorization is enforced. This is rich and valuable context.

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 long but well-structured, front-loading the purpose and key exclusions. Each sentence delivers useful information, but some redundancy exists with the schema (e.g., member_id being a match predicate is already in the schema). It is not overly verbose given the complexity.

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 11 parameters, no output schema, and the brokering workflow, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, workflow, transport constraints, response shape, limits, expiry, and required scope. It is fully sufficient for an agent to decide when to use it and how to handle the response.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minor clarifications like 'inline bytes are not accepted' and file_id read authorization, but most parameter meanings are already fully described in the schema. The description does not substantially improve on the schema for individual parameters.

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 the tool stages a print for an IC member and explicitly distinguishes it from creating a print job by noting it 'does NOT create a print job and does NOT enter the farm queue'. It also differentiates from sibling tools by referencing the confirm handoff flow.

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 implies usage for brokering a print on behalf of another member and explicitly states it is not a direct job submission, but it does not name ic_prints_submit as the alternative for printing for oneself. It also notes the member must confirm via ic_prints_confirm_handoff, providing clear workflow 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