Skip to main content
Glama

Immersive Commons

by com.immersivecommons

Advance a print request (farm manager)

ic_prints_update
Idempotent

Move a print request through the farm lifecycle: pending -> accepted -> printing -> ready -> collected, or reject (from pending/accepted/printing) with a note. Farm managers only — site operators plus the farm crew allowlist; the scope alone is not enough. The requester is notified on every move. Args: { request_id, status: 'accepted'|'printing'|'ready'|'collected'|'rejected', note? }. Returns: { ok, request }. Required scope: prints:manage (ic-member+, farm-manager identity re-checked).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
noteNoManager note (required advice for rejections — say why).
statusYesTarget status. Must be a legal move from the current status.
request_idYesThe request id (pj_...) to move.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint false, idempotentHint true), the description adds details: requester is notified on every move, farm manager authorization details, and the allowed transitions. It does not elaborate on idempotency, but provides useful behavioral context.

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 concise and front-loaded: it states the core purpose first, then details transitions, authorization, arguments, and return. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutation tool with no output schema, the description minimally covers return type { ok, request }. It includes authorization, lifecycle steps, and notification. It lacks error conditions or idempotency behavior, but overall adequate for the complexity.

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%, so baseline 3. The description adds meaning by stating status values and noting that note is for rejections ('required advice for rejections — say why'), which is extra guidance beyond the schema's 'Manager note' description.

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 moves a print request through a specific lifecycle (pending -> accepted -> printing -> ready -> collected) or rejects it. It uses a specific verb 'Move' and distinguishes from sibling tools like ic_prints_cancel, ic_prints_submit by focusing on status transitions.

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 specifies that only farm managers (with site operator and crew allowlist) can use it, and requires the prints:manage scope. It implies use cases for advancing or rejecting, but does not explicitly contrast with ic_prints_cancel or other alternatives.

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