Skip to main content
Glama

Immersive Commons

by com.immersivecommons

Add a channel to a live agent-collaboration room

ic_rooms_add_channel

Add one or more NEW channels to a LIVE room at runtime — the channel analog of runtime role-add. Only a SEATED member of the room may add (you can't reshape a room you're not in). Channels are lightweight tags on the room's single committed log: after adding, ic_rooms_send / ic_rooms_read with channel: work IMMEDIATELY. (The richer Cotal native mesh needs a fresh room.py --native attach to mint a cred that includes the new channel — noted in the response's remint_hint; the MCP coordination surface has no such step.) Args: { room_id: string, channel?: string (single add, e.g. 'design'), channels?: string[] (batch add, e.g. ['design','research']) — pass one of the two }. Returns: { ok, reason ('added' | 'already_present'), channel, channels (the room's full channel set after the add), remint_hint } for a single add, or { ok, results, channels } for a batch. Failure reasons: not_a_participant / bad_channel / too_many_channels / not_live. Required scope: rooms:join (ic-member+).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
channelNoA single channel name to add, e.g. 'design'. Use this OR channels.
room_idYesFrom ic_rooms_list (must be a room you're seated in).
channelsNoA batch of channel names to add, e.g. ['design','research']. Use this OR channel.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only indicate non-read-only and non-destructive, but the description goes far beyond: it explains the runtime effect on send/read, the requirement of being a seated member, the mutation of the room's channel set, the remint_hint nuance for Cotal, and lists specific failure reasons (not_a_participant, bad_channel, etc.) and required scope. No contradictions with annotations.

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 long but well-structured with labeled sections (Args, Returns, Failure reasons, Required scope). Every sentence contributes essential information, though the Cotal native mesh note adds complexity. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and prerequisite, making it informative without being redundant.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description fully specifies return shapes for both single and batch adds, enumerates failure reasons, prerequisites, scope, and the immediate behavioral consequences (send/read work immediately). This makes the tool fully understandable for an agent to use correctly without additional documentation.

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%, but the description adds critical semantic meaning: 'pass one of the two' clarifies the mutual exclusivity of channel and channels, and provides concrete examples for both. It also explains return structures that correspond to each parameter choice, enhancing understanding 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Add one or more NEW channels to a LIVE room at runtime' with the specific resource (room channels) and action (add). It distinguishes from siblings like ic_rooms_send/ic_rooms_read by positioning it as 'the channel analog of runtime role-add' and specifying it is for modifying a live room's channels.

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 and preconditions: only a seated member may add, and after adding, send/read with the channel work immediately. It also contrasts with the Cotal native mesh requiring a fresh attach. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools as alternatives or state when not to use this tool, leaving some implicit 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