Skip to main content
Glama

Immersive Commons

by com.immersivecommons

Post one news item to your startup's page (owner or operator)

ic_startup_post_news

Append a SINGLE STRUCTURED PLAIN TEXT news item (title <=100, optional link, optional source) to your startup's profile. Content auto-publishes (no review queue). NO HTML — the title is plain-text defanged, the link is URL-validated. Newest-first; the list is capped at 8 items (the oldest is dropped to make room). Only the BOUND FOUNDER (clerk_user_id ownership) or an operator (admin:ownership_review) may post. AGENT TOKENS MUST BE SIGNATURE-ENFORCED. Returns { ok, item, news_count }. Required scope: startup:edit.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlNoOptional link (normalized).
slugYesImmutable startup slug. Must already exist.
titleYesNews headline — STRUCTURED PLAIN TEXT (<=100 chars). No HTML.
sourceNoOptional source label.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description provides extensive behavioral context beyond annotations: auto-publishing, no HTML enforcement, URL validation, newest-first ordering, cap of 8 items with oldest dropped, and return structure. This gives the agent a thorough understanding of side effects and invariants.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core action. Each sentence adds value, covering constraints, behavior, authorization, and return format. It is slightly long but appropriate for the information density.

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?

Given the parameter count, lack of output schema, and sparse annotations, the description provides comprehensive context including authorization, behavior, constraints, and return value. It addresses all necessary aspects for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions in the schema. The description reinforces the plain-text constraint and optional nature, but adds minimal new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Hence baseline score.

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 (append a news item), the resource (startup's profile), and specific constraints (title <=100 chars, optional link and source). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools by focusing on news posting, which is unique among the listed siblings.

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 who can use the tool (bound founder or operator), required scope (startup:edit), and token handling (signature-enforced). It implicitly tells when to use (to post news) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use. Overall 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