Skip to main content
Glama

Immersive Commons

by com.immersivecommons

Request to be bound as founder of a startup (member)

ic_startup_request_ownership

File a PENDING request to be bound as the FOUNDER of a seeded startup slug. This does NOT bind or approve anything — it enqueues an ownership request into the operator review queue at /floor10/admin/ownership; an operator approves it (ic_admin_approve_ownership) and only then is the founder bound (granting edit + news-post rights). Mirrors POST /api/startups/[slug]/claim exactly. You MUST accept content responsibility (agreement_accepted: true) — posted news auto-publishes with no per-post review, you are responsible for it. Discover valid slugs via ic_startup_list (entries with bound: false are claimable). The slug must already exist (seeded from data/startups.ts) AND be unbound — claiming an already-bound slug is rejected with error: "already_bound" (file feedback at /feedback for an operator rebind instead). Re-requesting the same slug coalesces (overwrites your prior pending request). Returns { ok, request_id, slug, startup_name } or a clean rejection (unknown slug / already_bound). Required scope: startup:edit (ic-member+). A signature is NOT required (unlike the founder write tools).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
slugYesImmutable startup slug to claim (seeded from data/startups.ts). Must already exist.
agreement_acceptedNoContent-responsibility acceptance. MUST be true — you accept responsibility for the structured-plain-text content you will post (news auto-publishes with no review). A request without it is rejected.

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations, the description explains non-obvious behaviors: it does not bind or approve, it enqueues a request for operator review, re-requesting coalesces, required scope, signature not required, and content responsibility implications for auto-published news. This adds significant value beyond the annotations.

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?

The description is thorough yet concise, with each sentence providing essential information. It is well-structured: purpose first, then behavior, prerequisites, parameter details, return values, and scope. No unnecessary words.

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 no output schema, the description provides complete information: purpose, behavior, error cases, return values, required scope, and references to sibling tools. It covers all aspects an agent needs to correctly invoke the tool.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds meaning: slug must exist and be unbound, agreement_accepted must be true. It also explains the slug's origin and that it is immutable, and that a request without agreement_accepted is rejected. This enhances schema information.

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 purpose: to file a pending ownership request for a startup. It uses specific verbs ('File a PENDING request to be bound as the FOUNDER') and resource ('seeded startup slug'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like ic_admin_approve_ownership and ic_startup_list.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly states when to use the tool (to request ownership of an unbound startup slug) and when not to (if slug is already bound, and directs to file feedback for rebind). It also provides prerequisites (use ic_startup_list to discover claimable slugs) and alternatives (ic_admin_approve_ownership for approval).

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