formation_get_election83b_prefillGetElection83bPrefill returns prefilled values + missing fields for the 83(b) form, derived from the formation. Owner-scoped read.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| formationId | Yes | UUID value wrapper. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ein | No | ||
| hasEin | No | ||
| companyName | No | ||
| grantDateMin | No | ||
| taxpayerName | No | ||
| missingFields | No | ||
| stateOfIncorporation | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description adds that it is owner-scoped and returns both prefilled values and missing fields. This extra context is useful and does not contradict the annotations.
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?
Composed of one concise sentence that directly states the action, output, and scope. No filler or redundant information.
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 one-parameter read-only tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the description covers purpose, output content, and access scope adequately. No additional explanation of return values or auth is needed given the output schema exists.
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 single formationId parameter is fully documented in the schema as a UUID value wrapper. The description adds only that the prefill is derived from the formation, which is minimal additional meaning beyond the parameter name and schema.
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?
Clearly states it returns prefilled values and missing fields for the 83(b) form, derived from a formation. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like formation_set_election83b and formation_record_election83b_filing by focusing on the read/prefill aspect.
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?
Mentions 'Owner-scoped read', giving a clear context for when this read tool applies. Does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for basic selection among the formation read/write tools.
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.