cap_table_update_cap_table_agreement_statusUpdateCapTableAgreementStatus transitions a SAFE agreement's status (Feature 10 pipeline wiring) — e.g. to completed once signing finishes. Status-only update; artifact pointers are preserved.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | UUID value wrapper. | |
| status | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it specifies that only the status changes and that 'artifact pointers are preserved,' helping an agent predict side effects. It does not cover permissions or transition validation, but the key mutation scope is clearly disclosed.
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 two sentences and front-loaded with the core action. The parenthetical 'Feature 10 pipeline wiring' is cryptic and unnecessary, slightly reducing clarity, but overall the text is concise and focused.
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?
For a simple status update tool, the description covers the main purpose and side-effect scope, and the schema provides the enum. An output schema exists, so return details are not needed. However, it lacks explicit guidance on valid status transitions, which would be useful but is not essential for basic usage.
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 schema already documents the status enum and provides a basic id wrapper. The description adds value by identifying the id as a SAFE agreement and giving an example status transition, but it does not elaborate on individual enum values or constraints, so it only partially compensates for the 50% schema coverage.
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 identifies the tool as transitioning a SAFE agreement's status and explicitly contrasts it with a broader update by stating 'Status-only update.' This differentiates it from sibling tools like cap_table_update_cap_table_agreement, leaving no ambiguity about what it does.
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?
It provides a concrete use case (e.g., 'to completed once signing finishes') and scopes the tool to status-only changes, implying other agreement edits belong elsewhere. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls 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.
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.