Skip to main content
Glama

Immersive Commons

by com.immersivecommons

Check a transcription job's status (member)

ic_transcribe_status
Read-only

Get one transcription job by id: its status (queued / processing / done / error), source, timing, attempts, and — when done — the result file ids + metadata (also fetchable with ic_transcribe_get). You must be the submitter (or an operator). Poll no more than once per minute. Args: { job_id }. Returns: { ok, job }. Required scope: transcribe:read (ic-member+).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
job_idYesThe job id (tj_...) from ic_transcribe_submit.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: the polling rate limit, authentication requirements, and that the same data can be retrieved via another tool. It does not contradict annotations and discloses constraints beyond what annotations offer.

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 two sentences: the first covers purpose and return fields, the second adds constraints and permissions. It is front-loaded, concise, and every sentence adds value with no fluff.

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?

Given a simple status-check tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, return fields, constraints, and permissions. It is missing an explicit structure of the job object, but the listed fields provide reasonable guidance. Could be more complete with an example or reference to another tool's output.

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?

The only parameter 'job_id' has a schema description, but the tool description adds context: 'The job id (tj_...) from ic_transcribe_submit.' This clarifies the format and origin, adding meaning beyond the schema. Schema coverage is 100%.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'transcription job by id', and enumerates the specific fields returned (status, source, timing, attempts, result file ids + metadata). It distinguishes from siblings like ic_transcribe_list (list all jobs) and ic_transcribe_submit (submit new job) by mentioning the alternative tool ic_transcribe_get for fetching result files.

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 provides explicit polling guidance ('Poll no more than once per minute'), required permissions ('You must be the submitter (or an operator)'), and required scope ('transcribe:read (ic-member+)'). It also implies when not to use by mentioning that result file ids can be fetched with ic_transcribe_get, though it doesn't explicitly state alternative use cases.

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