Skip to main content
Glama

Lovie Company Formation

by co.lovie

Extract SAFE Terms

formation_extract_safe_terms

Reads a SAFE PDF and returns its terms WITHOUT saving anything. Always call this before ImportSAFE and show the result to the user for confirmation — never import a SAFE the user has not seen. Present one block per document, largest investment first, with exactly these fields in this order: investor name, investment amount, valuation cap, discount, post-money or pre-money, date, and which existing stakeholder it will be matched to (or that a new one will be created). Then state the effect on the cap table as three figures — stakeholders, SAFEs and SAFE capital now, what this import adds, and the totals after — and ask the user to confirm. Report the confidence score and every warning verbatim in plain language rather than as codes. Two things block the import until the user resolves them: a missing date (ask for it; a SAFE is never imported without one) and a company name on the document that differs from the company being imported into (say both names and ask the user to confirm it belongs here). This is the same review the web upload screen performs, so keep the wording and order identical.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
formationIdYesUUID value wrapper.
sourceS3UriNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
warningsNo
safeTermsNo
companyNameNo
formationIdNoUUID value wrapper.
sourceS3UriNo
investorNameNo
ocrConfidenceNo

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description thoroughly discloses behavioral traits beyond the sparse annotations (openWorldHint: false, destructiveHint: false): no persistence, mandatory user confirmation, exact output formatting, reporting of confidence/warnings, and two specific blocking conditions. This adds substantial context the annotations do not provide.

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 dense and every sentence carries operational meaning, but it is a single long paragraph covering many distinct requirements. It is front-loaded with the core behavior, though structure could be improved with bullet points for output format and blocking conditions.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description goes beyond it to specify presentation order, cap table effects, user confirmation steps, confidence reporting, and blocking conditions. It is fully sufficient for an agent to execute the tool safely and correctly.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The schema provides only minimal descriptions: formationId is described as a 'UUID value wrapper' and sourceS3Uri only has a pattern. The description does not explain how these parameters relate to the SAFE PDF or the extraction process, so it fails to compensate for the partial schema coverage.

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: 'Reads a SAFE PDF and returns its terms WITHOUT saving anything.' It clearly distinguishes this extraction tool from import/save operations such as cap_table_import_safe and formation_save_cap_table_import.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: 'Always call this before ImportSAFE and show the result to the user for confirmation.' It also explains blocking conditions and compares behavior to the web upload review, giving the agent clear context for when and how to use the tool.

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