Lovie Company Formation

List Global Counterparties

counterparty_get_list_global_counterparties

Read-only

GetListGlobalCounterparties performs a read-only batch lookup against the platform-wide canonical vendor registry. The filter accepts a list of provider stable IDs and/or aliases; the response returns every approved row matching ANY selector. Used by the cheap-resolve worker to short-circuit LLM enrichment for a whole batch in one RPC.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`filter`	Yes
`pageSize`	No
`pageToken`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`totalCount`	No
`nextPageToken`	No
`globalCounterparties`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed16 schema fields changedSep 10, 2026
- addedOutput schema / properties / globalCounterparties / items / properties / createdAt / anyOf
```
Added value: +[
+  {
+    "format": "date-time",
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / globalCounterparties / items / properties / createdAt / format
```
Removed value: -"date-time"
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / globalCounterparties / items / properties / createdAt / type
```
Removed value: -"string"
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / globalCounterparties / items / properties / id / anyOf
```
Added value: +[
+  {
+    "description": "UUID value wrapper.",
+    "properties": {
+      "value": {
+        "format": "uuid",
+        "type": "string"
+      }
+    },
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / globalCounterparties / items / properties / id / description
```
Removed value: -"UUID value wrapper."
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / globalCounterparties / items / properties / id / properties
```
Removed value: -{
-  "value": {
-    "format": "uuid",
-    "type": "string"
-  }
-}
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / globalCounterparties / items / properties / id / type
```
Removed value: -"object"
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / globalCounterparties / items / properties / metadata / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -true
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / globalCounterparties / items / properties / metadata / anyOf
```
Added value: +[
+  {
+    "additionalProperties": true,
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / globalCounterparties / items / properties / metadata / type
```
Removed value: -"object"
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / globalCounterparties / items / properties / providerIds / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -true
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / globalCounterparties / items / properties / providerIds / anyOf
```
Added value: +[
+  {
+    "additionalProperties": true,
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / globalCounterparties / items / properties / providerIds / type
```
Removed value: -"object"
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / globalCounterparties / items / properties / updatedAt / anyOf
```
Added value: +[
+  {
+    "format": "date-time",
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / globalCounterparties / items / properties / updatedAt / format
```
Removed value: -"date-time"
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / globalCounterparties / items / properties / updatedAt / type
```
Removed value: -"string"
```
First observedAug 11, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and destructiveHint as false. The description adds valuable behavioral details: it returns 'every approved row matching ANY selector,' revealing the OR-matching semantics, and notes the registry is 'canonical,' implying authoritative data. This goes beyond the annotation-supplied safety profile.

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 well-formed sentences with no unnecessary words. The primary action and scope are front-loaded, and the second sentence adds focused use-case context. It is highly efficient.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With a nested filter object, pagination, and a provided output schema (so return format is covered), the description supplies the essential behavioral quirk (ANY matching) and a clear use case. Pagination and key/value structure are self-evident from the schema, making the description sufficient for correct invocation.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the filter accepts 'provider stable IDs and/or aliases' and clarifies 'ANY selector' logic, aiding understanding of the filter parameter. However, it does not explain the nested providerIds object structure (key/value pairs) or the pagination parameters (pageSize, pageToken), leaving those less clear.

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 it 'performs a read-only batch lookup against the platform-wide canonical vendor registry', naming the specific action, resource, and batch nature. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like counterparty_get_counterparty, which likely handles single entities. The mention of the 'cheap-resolve worker' adds concrete context.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides a specific usage context: 'Used by the cheap-resolve worker to short-circuit LLM enrichment for a whole batch in one RPC,' clearly indicating this is for batch lookups. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to alternatives like counterparty_get_counterparty for single lookups, leaving some inference required.

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 tools Inspect

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.