Stonewake

Deal binding queue

deal_binding_queue

Read-onlyIdempotent

The parties on the caller team's live deals that are not yet matched to a company in a register, the worklist the dashboard shows behind Match parties to a register. Followed deals come first, then the parties flagged because two or more companies hold the identifier a person entered (flagged_identifier names it), then the parties with candidate companies. Each row names its deal (deal_id, deal_name, deal_followed), its team (team_id, team_name), the party's role and name, whether a person already chose none of the candidates (dismissed), and the candidates, each a company with node_id, label, country_iso3 and up to three identifiers, the LEI first. Pass deal_id to read one deal's parties; a deal outside the caller's team reads as an empty page. Paged with limit and offset; the response carries the exact total. Parties on deals from the shared deal pool are matched by Stonewake and not listed: pool_unbound counts them and pool_note says so. Matching a party happens in the Stonewake dashboard.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "deal_binding_queue"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Page size, default 50, maximum 100.
`offset`	No	Rows to skip, default 0.
`deal_id`	No	Only this deal's parties, a deal_id as deal_book rows carry it.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 12, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / offset / maximum
```
Added value: +9223372036854776000
```
AddedOct 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already establish the safe read profile, and the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: the three-tier ordering (followed, flagged_identifier, candidate), the empty-page result for a deal outside the caller's team, the exact total on paged responses, and the shared deal pool exclusion with pool_unbound and pool_note counters.

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?

Purpose and ordering are front-loaded, and there is no filler. The row-field enumeration is long but earns its place because there is no output schema; the single dense paragraph is the only structural weakness.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return contract itself: row fields, the nested candidate company shape (node_id, label, country_iso3, up to three identifiers, LEI first), pagination, total, and the pool exception. Nothing needed to call or interpret it is missing.

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%, so baseline is 3; the description still adds meaning by explaining that deal_id scopes to one deal's parties and that an out-of-team deal_id yields an empty page, and by tying limit/offset to a response carrying the exact total.

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 states a precise verb+resource: the parties on the caller team's live deals that are not yet matched to a company in a register, framed as the worklist behind 'Match parties to a register'. It also gives the ordering rule and exclusions, so an agent can separate this from deal_book or company_records without opening a schema.

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?

Explicit context for use: it is the dashboard worklist, pass deal_id to scope to one deal, and matching itself happens in the Stonewake dashboard (so this tool is not the mutation path). It does not name a specific sibling tool to use instead when the caller wants matched parties, which keeps it below a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Stonewake tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?