formation_set_registered_agentSets the registered agent for the formation. Pass use_default = true to use Lovie's included registered agent (recommended for most founders), or use_default = false with an agent to supply a custom one.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent | No | ||
| useDefault | No | ||
| formationId | Yes | UUID value wrapper. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| formationId | No | UUID value wrapper. | |
| registeredAgent | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only indicate non-destructive/non-open-world; description adds that the default agent is recommended and how to supply a custom one. However, it doesn't disclose behavior if both useDefault and agent are provided, or whether the change is reversible/overwrites existing.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no filler. Every clause contributes to understanding the tool's core function.
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 3-param tool with output schema and some annotations, the description covers the primary use cases. It's slightly incomplete in not explicating the mutual exclusivity of useDefault and agent, but overall adequate.
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?
Schema coverage is 33% (name and formationId only). Description explains the useDefault/agent relationship, adding meaning to the two key parameters, but doesn't elaborate on agent's nested contact/address fields or the optionality beyond the branch. This partially compensates for low schema coverage.
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?
Description states 'Sets the registered agent for the formation' – a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from related tools like formation_purchase_registered_agent (purchase vs set) and other formation_set_* setters.
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?
Explicitly instructs to pass use_default=true for Lovie's included agent (recommended for most founders) or use_default=false with a custom agent, providing clear context for both modes. It doesn't mention alternative tools or exclusions, but the in-tool choice is well covered.
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.