Skip to main content
Glama

Immersive Commons

by com.immersivecommons

Queue a booking for an IC resource

ic_resources_book

Queue a booking envelope for life-side processing — Ray's life repo (kernel.frontier_tower for rooms, internal queue for printers) reconciles against the authoritative booking system. Returns 'queued', not 'confirmed.' Rate-limited 10/token/UTC day; 30-day dedupe on (resource_id, user, start_iso). Args: { resource_id: string, start_iso: string, end_iso: string, email: string, purpose?: string }. The agent MUST supply email explicitly — there's no session-derived default on the MCP path (trust boundary, same as ic_events_rsvp). Required scope: resources:book.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
emailYesEmail Luma / Frontier Tower should attach to the booking. Required for agent callers.
end_isoYesISO-8601 end timestamp.
purposeNoWhat the booking is for. Optional.
start_isoYesISO-8601 start timestamp.
resource_idYesResource id from ic_resources_list.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Disclosures beyond annotations include: returns 'queued' not 'confirmed', rate limits, dedupe window, explicit email requirement due to trust boundary, and required scope. Annotations are all false, so description adds significant 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.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is relatively concise with 5-6 sentences, covering essential aspects without unnecessary repetition. However, it could be slightly more streamlined.

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 5-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, return behavior, rate limits, dedupe, required arguments, scope, and backend systems. This is comprehensive and leaves few ambiguities.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. Description adds value by explaining why email must be explicit (trust boundary) and noting that resource_id comes from ic_resources_list, which aids correct usage.

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 action ('Queue a booking envelope') and the resource ('for life-side processing'), specifying that it covers rooms and printers. This distinguishes it from other tools without needing explicit sibling names.

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?

Provides clear context: booking is queued, not confirmed; rate-limited 10/token/UTC day; 30-day dedupe; required scope. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or list 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