Skip to main content
Glama

Lovie Company Formation

by co.lovie
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Match Cap Table Stakeholder

cap_table_match_cap_table_stakeholder

MatchCapTableStakeholder suggests the existing stakeholder a parsed SAFE's investor name maps to (fuzzy match). Read-only.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
companyIdYesUUID value wrapper.
investorNameNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
matchedNo
stakeholderIdNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changed
    • addedOutput schema / properties / stakeholderId / anyOf
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "description": "UUID value wrapper.",
+    "properties": {
+      "value": {
+        "format": "uuid",
+        "type": "string"
+      }
+    },
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]
    • removedOutput schema / properties / stakeholderId / description
      Removed value: -"UUID value wrapper."
    • removedOutput schema / properties / stakeholderId / properties
      Removed value: -{
-  "value": {
-    "format": "uuid",
-    "type": "string"
-  }
-}
    • removedOutput schema / properties / stakeholderId / type
      Removed value: -"object"
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description adds a clear 'Read-only' claim, which is stronger and more specific than the annotation's destructiveHint=false, and it discloses that the operation is a non-mutating fuzzy match. This provides useful behavioral context beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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 two short sentences with no filler, and the core action and input are front-loaded. Every word contributes meaningful context, making it easy to scan.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

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

The description is sufficient for basic invocation, and the output schema covers return-value details. However, it does not explain the behavior when the optional 'investorName' parameter is omitted, nor does it mention related alternatives or follow-up actions when no match is found, leaving some operational ambiguity.

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 description clarifies that 'investorName' is the name from a parsed SAFE, adding meaning beyond the schema's bare field definition. However, it gives no additional context about 'companyId' beyond the schema's 'UUID value wrapper,' and with 50% schema description coverage the description only partially compensates for the undocumented parameter.

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 specific verb ('suggests'), a specific resource ('the existing stakeholder'), and the source input ('a parsed SAFE's investor name') with a fuzzy-match mechanism. This clearly identifies what the tool does and distinguishes it from create/get/update/delete stakeholder siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage during SAFE parsing by mentioning 'a parsed SAFE's investor name,' so an agent can infer the context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus creating a stakeholder or using other match-suggestion tools, nor does it mention any exclusions or fallback behavior.

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
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