cap_table_grant_safe_import_consentGrantSafeImportConsent records the company's consent at the current wording version. Required before an MCP-origin SaveCapTableImport.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| companyId | Yes | UUID value wrapper. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| granted | No | ||
| version | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide destructiveHint=true, so the mutation nature is known. Description adds the detail of consent tied to 'current wording version' and its prerequisite status, which is useful behavioral context beyond annotations.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded, no fluff. Every word adds meaning.
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?
Simple tool with one parameter, output schema, and annotations. Description covers purpose and prerequisite. It doesn't address idempotency or checking existing consent, but sibling get_safe_import_consent fills that gap.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% with companyId described as 'UUID value wrapper'. The description adds no 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.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('records the company's consent') and specific context ('at the current wording version'). It distinguishes from sibling cap_table_get_safe_import_consent by framing it as a prerequisite for 'MCP-origin SaveCapTableImport'.
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?
Explicitly says 'Required before an MCP-origin SaveCapTableImport', providing a clear when-to-use. Does not list alternatives or exclusions, but the stated dependency guides usage.
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.