Lovie Company Formation

Set Company Name

formation_set_company_name

Sets the company name and returns its parts: base_name, entity_ending, and the derived full_name (base + ending). Set the entity ending first with formation_set_entity_ending. After setting the name, call formation_check_name to verify availability in the selected state.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes	Human-readable name (1-255 Unicode chars).
`formationId`	Yes	UUID value wrapper.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`baseName`	No
`fullName`	No
`formationId`	No
`entityEnding`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedSep 10, 2026

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"
```

First observedAug 11, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations indicate openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds context about the return structure and ordering dependencies, which is valuable beyond annotations. Minor gap: it doesn't describe failure modes or state-specific validation, but this is acceptable given 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 compact, with the primary action and key outputs in the first sentence, followed by essential sequencing and verification steps. No filler; every sentence provides actionable information.

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 the presence of an output schemaating the return values Jason, the description does not need to enumerate them. It covers the main action, output highpoints, ordering, and verification. For a two-parameter tool, this is complete.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, covering both parameters (formationId and name) adequately. The description adds value by clarifying how the name is parsed into parts and the dependency on entity ending, which is not in the schema. This exceeds the baseline of 3.

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 the tool sets the company name and specifies the exact outputs (base_name, entity_ending, full_name). It is distinct from sibling tools like formation_set_entity_ending and formation_set_company_type by focusing on the name-setting action.

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 provides explicit sequencing ('Set the entity ending first with formation_set_entity_ending') and follow-up action ('call formation_check_name to verify availability'), giving clear when-to-use guidance. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it, but the instructions are sufficient.

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.