Skip to main content
Glama

Lovie Company Formation

by co.lovie

Set Company Address

formation_set_company_address

Sets the company's business address. Always present the user with BOTH options: pass source = ADDRESS_SOURCE_OWN with a full US address if they want to use their own, or source = ADDRESS_SOURCE_NEED_ASSISTANCE to give them Lovie's virtual mailbox (a real US address Lovie provides). Offer the mailbox proactively whenever the user has no address or prefers not to use a home/personal one. A real filing needs a resolvable US street, city, state, and ZIP.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sourceNo
addressNo
formationIdYesUUID value wrapper.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
formationIdNoUUID value wrapper.
needsVirtualPostMailNo

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The description adds useful context by stating the need for a resolvable US address and explaining Lovie's virtual mailbox as a real US address. However, it does not disclose whether the address replaces an existing one or if validation occurs at submission time, leaving some behavioral gaps given the sparse 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?

The description is exactly four sentences: a clear purpose statement, two user-option instructions, and a filing requirement. Every sentence adds value with no repetition of schema data, making it well-structured and front-loaded.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The description covers the core decision and the US address requirement, but it omits explicit dependency rules between source and address and does not clarify behavior when source is unspecified. Given the nested schema and required formationId, more detail would make the tool more consistently invokable.

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?

The description explains the meaning of ADDRESS_SOURCE_OWN and ADDRESS_SOURCE_NEED_ASSISTANCE and implies the address object is required for OWN. Yet it does not explicitly state the source-address dependency or address the ADDRESS_SOURCE_UNSPECIFIED value, so parameter semantics remain partially ambiguous.

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 clearly states 'Sets the company's business address' and elaborates on the two source options, making it distinct from sibling formation_set_* tools like formation_set_company_name and formation_set_registered_agent. The verb+resource pair is specific and unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description explicitly instructs to always present both source options and proactively offer the mailbox when the user has no address or prefers not to use a personal one. It does not mention alternatives like formation_update_formation, but the tool's scope is clearly defined and the guidance for source selection is strong.

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