Skip to main content
Glama

Lovie Company Formation

by co.lovie

Get Formation

formation_get_formation
Read-only

Returns the full formation record for a formation_id: company name, entity type, state, business address, registered agent, share structure, shareholders, authorized party, EIN, certificate data, payment and filing status, and timestamps. Use this to answer specific questions such as the user's EIN, registered agent, company address, or shareholders, and to RESUME an in-progress formation with a formation_id you already have — it works both before and after sign-in (do not start a new formation to resume).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
formationIdYesUUID value wrapper.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
progressNo
formationNo

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark readOnly/destructive hints, so the description only needs extra context. It adds that the tool works before and after sign-in and that it can resume a formation without starting a new one, both useful behavioral details beyond the schema and annotations.

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?

Three sentences with clear front-loading: returns fields, then use cases, then the resume note. No redundancy or filler.

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?

Given a single parameter, exhaustive annotations, an output schema, and a description that names returned fields and usage scenarios, the tool is fully contextualized for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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?

Input schema documents formationId fully as a UUID wrapper (100% coverage), so the description doesn't need to add format details. It simply restates the purpose; no extra semantics about the parameter value or constraints are provided.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description opens with 'Returns the full formation record for a formation_id' and enumerates fields (EIN, registered agent, shareholders, etc.), making the operation specific. It doesn't explicitly compare to sibling formation_get_formation_info, so it loses the highest differentiation point.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('answer specific questions such as the user's EIN, registered agent...') and when to reuse it ('RESUME an in-progress formation'), plus a clear exclusion ('do not start a new formation to resume'). It doesn't name an alternative tool, but the guidance is actionable and context-rich.

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