Skip to main content
Glama

Lovie Company Formation

by co.lovie

Set Cap Table Pipeline Status

cap_table_set_cap_table_pipeline_status

Moves ONE investor's holding along the fundraising pipeline. Use this to change a stage — never UpdateCapTableSecurity, which is a full replace and will blank any field you do not resend. Forward goes one stage at a time: committed -> sent -> signed (awaiting_middleman sits between sent and signed and applies only to deals routed through a middleman, so stepping over it is fine). Skipping further ahead is rejected. Moving BACK to an earlier stage is allowed and is how a stage entered by mistake gets corrected — no need to delete the investor. Two things cannot be undone: 'wired' is set only by recording the wire (RecordCapTableWire, which requires a matched bank transaction or a verified payment proof) and never by this tool, and once wired the only move is a refund (RecordCapTableRefund). Setting the stage a holding already has is accepted and changes nothing. The fundraising pipeline is investors only: founders and employees receive equity, they never commit or wire capital, so a stage move on their holding is refused — leave them out when you list or summarize the pipeline.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
companyIdYesUUID value wrapper.
securityIdYesUUID value wrapper.
pipelineStatusNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the sparse annotations (openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses important behaviors: one-stage-at-a-time forward moves, rejection of multi-step jumps, allowed backward moves, no-op on same stage, refusal for non-investors, and the irreversibility of 'wired' status. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is long but front-loaded with the core purpose and every sentence contributes critical constraints. It could be trimmed slightly, but the density of essential rules justifies its length.

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 complexity, the description covers all relevant rules: valid stage transitions, special middleman handling, backward corrections, irreversible wired state, and investor-only scope. With an output schema present, return structure is already handled, making the description sufficiently complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema provides only UUID wrapper descriptions for companyId and securityId, and no description for pipelineStatus (67% coverage). The description compensates by defining the pipeline sequence (committed -> sent -> signed, with awaiting_middleman intermediate) and clarifying the semantics of the status field, though it doesn't explicitly name the parameters.

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 clearly states the tool 'Moves ONE investor's holding along the fundraising pipeline,' identifying the specific verb, resource, and scope. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling UpdateCapTableSecurity by warning that the latter is a full replace that blanks unsent fields.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly explains when to use this tool instead of alternative tools: 'never UpdateCapTableSecurity, which is a full replace,' and references RecordCapTableWire and RecordCapTableRefund for irreversible transitions. It details forward/backward movement rules, the middleman edge case, and the investor-only restriction, giving clear guidance.

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