Lovie Company Formation

Approve Certificate

formation_approve_certificate

Records the user's approval of the reviewed formation details (the certificate checkpoint). This only records approval — it files NOTHING with any state and charges NOTHING, so it is always safe to call, including during testing; never refuse or stop short because it is a 'test'. Call it once the user has reviewed the details and confirmed they are correct. As soon as this returns, call formation_get_payment_link with the SAME formation_id. Formation is a single one-time payment — there is NO subscription and NO monthly/annual choice, so do NOT ask the user to pick a billing cadence. Do NOT start a new formation or re-run earlier steps.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`formationId`	Yes	UUID value wrapper.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`nextStep`	No
`approvedAt`	No
`formationId`	No
`certificateId`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed7 schema fields changedSep 10, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / approvedAt / anyOf

Added value: +[
+  {
+    "format": "date-time",
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]

removedOutput schema / properties / approvedAt / format
```
Removed value: -"date-time"
```
removedOutput schema / properties / approvedAt / type
```
Removed value: -"string"
```

addedOutput schema / properties / formationId / anyOf

Added value: +[
+  {
+    "description": "UUID value wrapper.",
+    "properties": {
+      "value": {
+        "format": "uuid",
+        "type": "string"
+      }
+    },
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]

removedOutput schema / properties / formationId / description
```
Removed value: -"UUID value wrapper."
```

removedOutput schema / properties / formationId / properties

Removed value: -{
-  "value": {
-    "format": "uuid",
-    "type": "string"
-  }
-}

removedOutput schema / properties / formationId / type
```
Removed value: -"object"
```

First observedAug 11, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses more: 'it files NOTHING with any state and charges NOTHING, so it is always safe to call, including during testing'. It also warns against refusing in test contexts, which is behavioral guidance not present in annotations. No contradiction.

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 longer than a simple sentence, but every clause earns its place: purpose, side-effect clarity, invocation timing, next-step routing, billing-cadence exclusion, and no-re-run instruction. The core action is front-loaded and the operational warnings prevent likely agent mistakes.

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?

For a one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description provides a full picture: what it does, that it is safe and side-effect-free, when to call, and the immediate next step. Minor omissions (e.g., idempotency or handling repeated calls) are not critical given its simplicity and the 'always safe to call' statement.

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?

The schema has one parameter (formationId) with a minimal 'UUID value wrapper' description; the tool description adds meaningful context by requiring the 'SAME formation_id' to be reused in the follow-up payment link call, clarifying the parameter's role. It doesn't detail the nested object structure, hence not a 5.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Records the user's approval of the reviewed formation details (the certificate checkpoint)') and explicitly distinguishes what it does not do ('files NOTHING with any state and charges NOTHING'). This separates it from siblings like formation_generate_certificate and formation_confirm_payment.

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?

It provides explicit when to call ('Call it once the user has reviewed the details and confirmed they are correct'), what to do next ('As soon as this returns, call formation_get_payment_link with the SAME formation_id'), and guarded exclusions ('do NOT ask the user to pick a billing cadence', 'Do NOT start a new formation or re-run earlier steps'). It even instructs not to refuse during testing.

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.