card_unfreeze_cardRestore a frozen card at the issuer so it accepts charges again. Safe to repeat: a card that is already active is returned unchanged and successfully. A cancelled card cannot be restored and is rejected.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cardId | Yes | UUID value wrapper. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| card | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond annotations (idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description adds meaningful state-transition details: an active card is returned unchanged, and a cancelled card is rejected. It also notes the action happens 'at the issuer', which is extra context about the operation's target.
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?
Three sentences deliver the core action, repeat safety, and edge-case behavior with no filler. Every sentence adds information and is front-loaded.
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 a simple one-parameter tool with annotations and an output schema, the description fully covers the operation's behavior, safety, and failure conditions. It is as complete as needed without redundant detail.
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 description coverage is 100% for the single parameter (cardId). The description does not add parameter-level semantics beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.
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 ('Restore') and names the resource ('a frozen card') with a clear outcome ('so it accepts charges again'). It distinguishes from the sibling tool card_freeze_card by describing the reverse operation.
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 clearly implies when to use it: when a card is frozen and needs to accept charges again. It also provides an exclusion (cancelled cards cannot be restored) and confirms idempotent behavior for already-active cards, but does not explicitly name alternatives or contrast with card_freeze_card.
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.