Clearwater Capital Group
Server Details
Help a US small business owner apply for business funding: $10K-$2M, no hard credit pull to apply.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP · MCP 2025-06-18
- URL
- ChatGPT
- –
- Claude
- –
TDQS
Scored across 2 tools
The two tools have clearly distinct roles: one retrieves the application rules and fields, while the other creates a review/signing link after answers are confirmed. The descriptions explicitly state the sequencing and purpose, leaving no realistic risk of misselection.
Both tool names follow the same verb_noun snake_case convention: create_review_link and get_funding_application. The pattern is predictable and consistent throughout the server.
The server exposes only two tools, which is very thin even for a narrow workflow. The two operations are meaningful, but the surface feels more like a minimal workflow pair than a fully scoped toolset.
The core flow is covered: retrieve the application rules and fields, then generate a review/signing link for the business owner. Minor gaps exist around application status or follow-up, but the stated stateless link-generation purpose is largely complete.
Available Tools
2 toolscreate_review_linkMake the owner's review linkARead-onlyInspect
Checks the answers the business owner gave you and returns the one link they open on clearwatercapitalgrp.com to review every answer, add their own identity details, consent and sign. Stores nothing and sends nothing. Get the owner's OK on their answers first. Never include a Social Security number, date of birth, or bank login.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dba | No | Doing-business-as name, if different. | |
| ein | No | The business's 9-digit Employer Identification Number (EIN). Never a Social Security number. Required unless the entity_type is "Sole Prop" and the business has no EIN. | |
| notes | No | Anything underwriting should know: why now, a slow season, a big contract. | |
| timing | No | Required. How soon the owner needs the funds: same_day (within 24 hours), this_week (2-5 days), one_two_weeks, thirty_days (30+ days). | |
| website | No | Business website. | |
| industry | No | Required. What the business does, in a few words (for example "Plumbing" or "Restaurant"). | |
| entity_type | No | Required. How the business is registered. | |
| owner_email | No | Required. Owner's email address. | |
| owner_phone | No | Required. Owner's 10-digit US mobile number. | |
| owner_title | No | Required. Owner's title (for example Owner, CEO, Managing Member). | |
| business_zip | No | Required. 5-digit ZIP code. | |
| primary_bank | No | Required. Bank that holds the main business checking account. | |
| use_of_funds | No | Required. What the money is for. | |
| business_city | No | Required. Business city. | |
| business_state | No | Required. 2-letter US state code. | |
| owner_home_zip | No | Required. Owner's 5-digit home ZIP code. | |
| business_street | No | Required. Business street address. | |
| funding_history | No | Required. Anything that has ever happened with a business lender or cash advance. "none" for a clean history, otherwise any of the other options. In a review link, separate with commas. | |
| owner_home_city | No | Required. Owner's home city. | |
| owner_last_name | No | Required. Business owner's last name. | |
| amount_requested | No | Required. Dollars the owner wants, as a whole number (for example 75000). | |
| owner_first_name | No | Required. Business owner's first name. | |
| owner_home_state | No | Required. 2-letter US state code of the owner's home. | |
| owner_home_street | No | Required. Owner's home street address. | |
| ownership_percent | No | Required. Percent of the business the owner holds, 1 to 100. | |
| merchant_processor | No | Card processor, if the business takes cards (for example Square or Stripe). | |
| business_legal_name | No | Required. Legal name of the business, as registered. | |
| monthly_card_volume | No | Monthly credit card sales in dollars, if any. | |
| business_start_month | No | Required. Month and year the business opened, as YYYY-MM. | |
| estimated_credit_score | No | Required. Owner's best guess at their personal credit score, 300 to 850. A guess is fine. | |
| open_advances_or_loans | No | Required. Every merchant cash advance or business loan the business pays today. "none" if none. Otherwise a list of { "lender", "balance", "payment", "frequency" } (frequency: daily, weekly, bi-weekly, monthly). In a review link, write each as "Lender, balance, payment, frequency" separated by semicolons. | |
| average_monthly_revenue | No | Required. Average monthly deposits into the business bank account, in dollars. |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses that the tool stores nothing and sends nothing, explains that the link is for the owner to review and sign, and adds sensitive-data constraints. This is substantive behavioral context for a tool whose name says 'create'.
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?
Four sentences, front-loaded with the action and result, followed by the no-storage guarantee and safety constraints. Every sentence contributes necessary information without repetition.
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 32-parameter tool with rich schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: validation, output link, no storage or sending, owner review flow, and sensitive-data prohibitions. The remaining parameter detail is appropriately delegated to the schema.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameter schema already carries the detailed semantics and the baseline score is 3. The description adds a useful global constraint about never including SSNs, dates of birth, or bank logins, but does not add field-specific meaning beyond the schema.
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?
The description states a specific action (checks the owner's answers) and a concrete output (returns the one review link on clearwatercapitalgrp.com). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish this from the sibling get_funding_application.
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?
It gives a prerequisite (get the owner's OK first) and a sensitive-data exclusion, which provides some usage guidance. However, it does not state when to use this tool instead of get_funding_application, nor does it describe when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_funding_applicationGet the Clearwater business funding applicationARead-onlyInspect
Clearwater Capital Group business funding application for US small business owners (merchant cash advances, lines of credit, term loans; $10K-$2M; no hard credit pull to apply). Returns the rules for agents and every field to ask the owner. Call this first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: it is a static rules/field-definition payload rather than live account data, and it hints at the domain constraint 'no hard credit pull to apply.' It does not describe payload structure, but with no output schema and a trivial read, this is close to complete.
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?
A single dense sentence covering product, audience, and return contents, followed by a short imperative. It is front-loaded with the resource identity, though the 'Call this first' instruction sits at the end where it is slightly less prominent than it could be.
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 zero-parameter, read-only retrieval with no output schema, the definition covers what it returns (agent rules plus the fields to collect from the owner) and when to call it (first). Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing, though it could state whether the content is static or fetched live.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed by framing the call as a straightforward 'call this first' retrieval, leaving nothing ambiguous about invocation.
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?
The description names a specific resource (Clearwater Capital Group business funding application) and specifies the return content: 'the rules for agents and every field to ask the owner.' The verb is implicit ('Returns') but sufficient. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling create_review_link, which is why it falls short of 5.
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?
The closing imperative 'Call this first' gives explicit sequencing guidance, telling the agent to invoke this before proceeding with the application flow. It offers no when-not-to-use conditions or named alternatives, but the 'first' directive is the relevant usage signal for a zero-parameter bootstrap tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
2 tool updates
- First observed
create_review_link - First observed
get_funding_application
Related MCP Connectors
Australian business loans: ATO debt, caveat, equipment, property. Check fit, then a broker calls.
Search 31,000+ open US grants, federal contracts, and foundations. Checked daily, free tier.
Find US federal grants your organization is actually eligible to apply for. Free, no API key.
Find federal and public grants a business may qualify for, with eligibility and links.
Related MCP Servers
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceAnalyzes government support program announcements and business profiles to determine eligibility, identify missing information, detect risks, and generate application plans for small business owners.-
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceQuery 13,000+ US consumer lenders with eligibility criteria, rates, CFPB complaints, and ratings. Find matching lenders by borrower profile, get full profiles, compare lenders, and check eligibility.MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceAutonomously discovers non-dilutive funding opportunities from Grants.gov, generates AI-powered pitch drafts using Gemini, and integrates with Google Workspace to create email drafts and calendar reminders for grant deadlines.6MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityAmaintenanceRead one exact U.S. federal grant opportunity next to its official record with seven MCP tools for cited documents, requirements, amendments, hard gates, award history, and unresolved evidence. Independent UtilityHouse product; limited free beta.MIT
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.