Skip to main content
Glama

ExitCleanly — LLC Dissolution by State

by com.exitcleanly

What an undissolved LLC keeps costing

cost_of_not_dissolving_llc
Read-onlyIdempotent

Explain what it costs to leave an LLC undissolved instead of formally closing it: annual report and franchise fees, registered agent fees, late-filing penalties, and accountant fees for zero returns, with typical yearly ranges. Use when someone asks what happens if they just stop using the company, stop filing, abandon it or let it lapse, or whether dissolving is worth the filing fee.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
stateNoOptional US state, to add that state’s own filing fee to the comparison

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With annotations already indicating readOnly, idempotent, and closed world, the description adds behavioral context by specifying the cost categories and that it provides typical yearly ranges. It doesn't contradict annotations. It could mention output format but for an explanatory read-only tool, the existing detail is sufficient.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and the second sentence provides usage guidance. No redundant words.

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

Completeness4/5

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

The description fully covers what costs are included and when to use the tool, and the schema covers the only parameter. There is no output schema, but the description implies the output is an explanation. This is sufficient for a straightforward conceptual tool.

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 100%, so the optional 'state' parameter is already fully documented in the schema. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 uses the specific verb 'Explain' and clearly identifies the resource (costs of leaving an LLC undissolved) and enumerates the cost categories. It differentiates from sibling tools by focusing on the 'not dissolving' side, while siblings cover dissolution requirements and fees.

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 lists use cases: stopping use, stop filing, abandoning, or deciding whether dissolving is worth the fee. It does not explicitly name sibling tools or provide when-not guidance, but the context is clear enough to select this tool over the alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All ExitCleanly — LLC Dissolution by State 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

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool addresses a distinct user need: ongoing costs of abandoning an LLC, requirements for dissolving in a specific state, and cross-state fee comparison. There is no meaningful overlap between the tools, so an agent can reliably select the right one.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tool names use snake_case and are descriptive, but two follow a verb_noun pattern (get_, list_) while the third is a noun phrase (cost_of_not_dissolving_llc). This minor inconsistency does not obscure meaning.

Tool Count5/5

Three tools is a well-scoped count for a focused informational server. Each tool earns its place by covering a distinct aspect of LLC dissolution, fitting within the ideal 3-15 range.

Completeness4/5

The server covers the primary informational needs: cost of inaction, state-specific requirements, and fee comparisons. A minor gap is the lack of a dedicated tool for computing total dissolution cost from both filing and ancillary fees, but this is partially addressed within get_llc_dissolution_requirements.

Resources