cap_table_match_cap_table_stakeholderMatchCapTableStakeholder suggests the existing stakeholder a parsed SAFE's investor name maps to (fuzzy match). Read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| companyId | Yes | UUID value wrapper. | |
| investorName | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| matched | No | ||
| stakeholderId | No | UUID value wrapper. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds 'Read-only' and 'fuzzy match' behavior beyond the annotations (openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false), clarifying that this is a non-mutating suggestion tool. It does not detail edge cases like no match or multiple matches, but the read-only declaration is valuable.
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 a single concise sentence plus a short 'Read-only' tag. It is front-loaded with the tool's purpose, contains no fluff, and every word contributes to understanding.
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?
Given the output schema and annotations, the description provides key context: the input source (parsed SAFE), the matching behavior, and read-only nature. However, it lacks guidance on alternatives and does not explain the role of companyId, leaving a moderate 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?
The description clarifies investorName as the investor name from a parsed SAFE, which adds meaning beyond the schema. However, companyId remains vague ('UUID value wrapper') and its purpose is not explained. With 50% schema coverage, the description only partially compensates.
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 ('suggests') plus a clear resource ('existing stakeholder') and an explicit method ('fuzzy match' of a parsed SAFE's investor name). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling CRUD tools like create/update/delete stakeholder and from other matching tools.
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 during SAFE parsing/import via 'parsed SAFE's investor name', but it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., creating a new stakeholder) and does not mention any exclusions or preferred conditions.
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.