Skip to main content
Glama

Immersive Commons

by com.immersivecommons

Request a weekly-token Z.ai Claude-Code key (member)

ic_request_zai_key

ic-member flow: request a weekly-token Z.ai Claude-Code key. Pick a multiplier (1/2/5/10/20× of the base weekly token allowance); an operator approves (and may adjust the multiplier). The minted key resets its token meter every Monday and never expires. Args: { multiplier?: 1|2|5|10|20 (default 1), note?: string }. Returns { ok, request_id, status:'pending', multiplier }. Required scope: keys:request.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
noteNoOptional context for the operator (e.g. what you're building).
multiplierNoWeekly-token multiplier (× the base allowance). Default 1. The operator may approve a different multiplier.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Description adds key lifecycle details: 'resets its token meter every Monday and never expires', required scope 'keys:request', and return shape. Annotations already signal non-read-only and non-destructive; no contradictions.

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?

Four sentences with no redundancy. Front-loaded with the core action and flow, then parameters, return, and scope. Each sentence contributes essential information.

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 two-parameter request tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter guidance, return format, lifecycle, and required scope. Lacks explicit mention of the approval step resulting in key creation, but 'operator approves' implies it.

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%, baseline 3. Description explains multiplier meaning ('× of the base weekly token allowance') and notes operator adjustment, adding value beyond schema descriptions.

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 specifies 'request a weekly-token Z.ai Claude-Code key', identifies the flow as 'ic-member flow', and details the multiplier options and operator approval. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like ic_request_workshop_key or ic_get_my_zai_key.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

While it mentions 'ic-member flow' implying when to use, it does not explicitly state when not to use or compare with alternatives like ic_get_my_zai_key for existing keys. The context is clear but lacks direct guidance.

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