Skip to main content
Glama

Lovie Company Formation

by co.lovie

Close Period

accounting_close_period
DestructiveIdempotent

Close an accounting period: lock the window [start_date, end_date] and post a balanced closing entry that rolls the period's net income into equity (current-year earnings for a month/quarter close, retained earnings for a fiscal-year close). Periods must not overlap an existing closed period. After closing, writes dated inside the window are rejected until the period is reopened. Re-closing the same window is a no-op. Multi-currency companies get one closing entry per currency. Every close is audit-logged.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
basisNo
endDateNo
companyIdYesUUID value wrapper.
startDateNo
granularityNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
periodNo

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses extensive behavioral traits beyond the annotations: the window locking, balanced closing entry, equity rollover logic (current-year earnings vs. retained earnings), overlap restriction, rejection of writes, no-op re-closing, multi-currency handling, and audit logging. This adds significant context beyond the idempotentHint and destructiveHint 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 a single, dense paragraph that front-loads the purpose and then enumerates essential behaviors. Every sentence adds value—covering prerequisites, effects, idempotency, multi-currency nuance, and audit logging—without redundant fluff.

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?

For a destructive, idempotent mutation with an output schema, the description covers all key aspects: what the operation does, constraints, side effects, edge cases, and audit behavior. The presence of sibling tools like accounting_reopen_period and accounting_preview_close further contextualizes the tool's role in the lifecycle.

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 description coverage is low (20%), so the description must compensate. It explains the startDate/endDate window and indirectly explains granularity by noting different closing entry behavior for month/quarter vs. fiscal-year closes. However, it does not clarify the basis parameter (accrual/cash) or the companyId wrapper, leaving gaps that the schema alone does not fill.

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 with a specific verb ('Close') and resource ('accounting period'), and elaborates on the exact behavior: locking the date window and posting a closing entry. It naturally distinguishes from siblings like accounting_reopen_period and accounting_preview_close by detailing the closing semantics.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: periods must not overlap existing closed periods, and after closing, writes are rejected until reopened. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., preview_close for dry-run) or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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

All Lovie Company Formation 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

C2.5/5.0
Disambiguation1/5

Multiple tool pairs are nearly identical (formation_extract_cap_table / formation_extract_cap_table_ocr; formation_start_formation / formation_create_formation), and several tools lack descriptions, making selection ambiguous. The scale of 202 tools with overlapping summaries (e.g., multiple cap-table summary tools) compounds the confusion.

Naming Consistency3/5

Dominant snake_case `module_verb_noun` pattern, but with notable deviations: `captable_send_safe_for_signature` uses an inconsistent abbreviation, `check_company_name_availability` lacks a module prefix, and `get_list_` vs `list_` prefixes are mixed. Readable but not fully consistent.

Tool Count1/5

202 tools is far beyond any reasonable surface for a single server, even a broad platform. The sheer number overwhelms and makes tool discovery impractical; many tools are peripheral (ads metrics) to the core formation purpose.

Completeness4/5

The domain appears well covered: formation flows, cap-table lifecycle (import, close, simulate), accounting (journal entries, periods, schedules), cards, documents, and transactions all have CRUD or lifecycle operations. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no card deletion, no counterparty creation), but they are unlikely to cause dead ends.

Resources