Skip to main content
Glama

Lovie Company Formation

by co.lovie

Get Cap Table Round Summaries

cap_table_get_cap_table_round_summaries
Read-onlyIdempotent

Returns, for every funding round that has investors attached, how much capital sits at each stage of the pipeline (committed, signed, wired), the total raised, and how many investors are in the round. Read-only. Use this to answer "how is the round going" or "how much have we actually collected" without adding up individual investors by hand — the stage buckets are exclusive, so each investor's capital appears in exactly one of them and raised is their sum. Wired is money in the bank; committed and signed are promised but not yet received.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
companyIdYesUUID value wrapper.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
summariesNo

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses important semantics: the stage buckets are exclusive, raised is the sum of the buckets, and it clarifies the meanings of committed/signed/wired. This is valuable behavioral insight not available from annotations alone.

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 well-structured, with the first sentence stating what is returned and the second providing usage guidance and key semantic clarifications. 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.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description fully covers the return value semantics, usage context, and important caveats about how the round stages are aggregated. It is complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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?

The schema already covers the single companyId parameter with a description ('UUID value wrapper') at 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') and explicitly names the resource (funding round summaries) and the exact fields returned (capital per pipeline stage, total raised, investor count). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_cap_table_round by scoping to all rounds with investors attached.

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 use cases: answering 'how is the round going' or 'how much have we actually collected' without manual summation. This gives good context, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use the 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