cap_table_generate_cap_table_summary_pdfGenerateCapTableSummaryPdf renders the cap-table summary to a branded PDF on the backend document engine (Gotenberg) and returns the bytes (#364 — moves PDF generation out of the browser). Read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| companyId | Yes | UUID value wrapper. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), the description adds key behavioral details: it renders on a backend document engine (Gotenberg), returns bytes, and explicitly states 'Read-only'. This provides useful context about safety and execution environment, though it does not discuss error behavior or prerequisites.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loads the core action, and includes only essential details (backend engine, return type, read-only, ticket reference). Every part earns its place with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter tool with an output schema and annotations, the description covers the action, execution location, output type, and safety profile. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, without needing to explain return structure since the output schema exists.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers 100% of the parameter with a description ('UUID value wrapper'), so the description does not need to add parameter detail. It adds no further semantics, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage, but does not go beyond the baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('renders') and identifies the exact resource ('cap-table summary to a branded PDF'), while also noting the backend engine (Gotenberg) and return type (bytes). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like cap_table_generate_cap_table_agreement_pdf and cap_table_get_cap_table_summary.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for generating a PDF of the cap-table summary and mentions moving PDF generation out of the browser, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. No alternative tools are named as contrasts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
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.
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.
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.
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.