Skip to main content
Glama

Immersive Commons

by com.immersivecommons

Request a 5-hour workshop Claude-Code key (public)

ic_request_workshop_key

Walk-in flow: request a 5-hour Z.ai Claude-Code key tied to an upcoming IC event. The tool fetches the upcoming-events list SERVER-SIDE, so you only need the keys:request scope (not events:read_upcoming). Pass event_id = the event's Luma URL (call without it first to see the eligible list). An IC operator approves before the key mints. Args: { event_id?: string, note?: string }. Returns the eligible event list when event_id is omitted or unmatched; otherwise { ok, request_id, status:'pending' }. Required scope: keys:request.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
noteNoOptional context for the operator reviewing the request.
event_idNoThe upcoming event you're attending (its Luma URL, e.g. https://luma.com/<slug>). Omit to list eligible events first.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Discloses server-side event fetch, approval requirement, return behavior (list vs. pending response), and scope requirement. Annotations are minimal and not contradicted; description fully compensates.

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?

Multiple sentences each add distinct value: flow, scope, parameter behavior, returns. No wasted words. Front-loaded with purpose.

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?

Complete for a request tool: explains both modes, approval step, return shapes, and scope. Minor gap on error handling or key delivery details, but not essential for invocation.

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 covers both parameters with descriptions, but description adds crucial usage context (call without event_id to list, Luma URL format, optional note purpose). Adds meaningful value beyond schema.

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?

Description clearly states the tool requests a 5-hour Z.ai Claude-Code key for an upcoming IC event, using specific verbs and distinguishing the walk-in flow from related tools like ic_request_zai_key or ic_admin_* tools.

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?

Explicitly explains when to omit event_id to list eligible events, that an operator approves, and required scope. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or comparison to alternatives but still provides clear 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