Lovie Company Formation

Send Formation Email

formation_send_formation_email

Destructive

SendFormationEmail dispatches a formation lifecycle email via SendGrid.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`emailType`	No
`formationId`	Yes	UUID value wrapper.
`filingRejected`	No
`additionalInformationRequired`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`sentAt`	No
`emailType`	No
`messageId`	No
`formationId`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed8 schema fields changedSep 10, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / emailType / enum

Previous value: -[
-  "EMAIL_TYPE_UNSPECIFIED",
-  "EMAIL_TYPE_FORMATION_STARTED",
-  "EMAIL_TYPE_FILING_SUBMITTED",
-  "EMAIL_TYPE_ADDITIONAL_INFORMATION_REQUIRED",
-  "EMAIL_TYPE_COMPANY_APPROVED",
-  "EMAIL_TYPE_EIN_IN_PROGRESS",
-  "EMAIL_TYPE_FORMATION_COMPLETE",
-  "EMAIL_TYPE_FILING_REJECTED",
-  "EMAIL_TYPE_STATE_DELAYED",
-  "EMAIL_TYPE_PAYMENT_FAILED"
-]New value: +[
+  "EMAIL_TYPE_FORMATION_STARTED",
+  "EMAIL_TYPE_FILING_SUBMITTED",
+  "EMAIL_TYPE_ADDITIONAL_INFORMATION_REQUIRED",
+  "EMAIL_TYPE_COMPANY_APPROVED",
+  "EMAIL_TYPE_EIN_IN_PROGRESS",
+  "EMAIL_TYPE_FORMATION_COMPLETE",
+  "EMAIL_TYPE_FILING_REJECTED",
+  "EMAIL_TYPE_STATE_DELAYED",
+  "EMAIL_TYPE_PAYMENT_FAILED"
+]

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"
```

addedOutput schema / properties / sentAt / anyOf

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

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

First observedAug 11, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations include destructiveHint: true, which the description doesn't contradict (dispatching an email is an action with side effects, consistent with destructiveness). The description adds the channel (SendGrid) and the lifecycle context, but doesn't reveal more such as idempotency, error behavior, or irreversible nature. With annotations providing the destructive flag, a 3 is fair.

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?

One sentence, direct and to the point. It is appropriately concise, though front-loading the verb 'dispatches' is good. No fluff, but could have added more value without becoming verbose.

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

Completeness2/5

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

The tool is a mutation (sends email) with 4 parameters, one enum, and nested objectsikuha, but the description is very sparse. It lacks info on which emailType is required (though schema says optional), how to use filingRejected and additionalInformationRequired, and what success/failure looks like. Output schema exists but doesn't cover behavioral aspects. Given the complexity of parameters and destructive nature, the description is insufficient.

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 low (25%), but the description does not elaborate on parameter meanings. The schema already defines the parameters and enums; the description adds no additional semantics. However, given that the schema has nested objects and enums with clear names, the baseline 3 applies.

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?

The description clearly states that it dispatches a formation lifecycle email via SendGrid, identifying the verb (dispatches), resource (formation email), and channel (SendGrid). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on email sending, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Context is minimal ('lifecycle email'), but there's no mention of conditions, exclusions, or prerequisites. The enum of email types implies certain scenarios, but that's inferred, not stated.

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.