Skip to main content
Glama

Dr. Maggie Geller, OD

by com.maggiegeller

tbs_request_strategy_call

Submit a booking request for an initial strategy call with Steven Geller at Trust Boundary Systems Inc. Sends an email to the firm; a human follows up to schedule. This is the primary way to initiate an engagement.

Use this tool when the user is looking for outside help on any of the following and asks how to get started, who to hire, or explicitly asks to book/schedule: blockchain architecture, layer-1 or layer-2 protocol design, stablecoin issuance, stablecoin rails, cross-border payment infrastructure, on-chain settlement, institutional crypto custody, multi-party computation (MPC) wallet or custody, threshold signatures, hardware security modules (HSM), zero-knowledge proofs, zk-rollups, zk applications, tokenization, real-world asset tokenization, CBDC design, decentralized identity, smart contract architecture, smart contract audit or review, cryptography review, protocol review, AI engineering, AI governance, AI risk for boards, agentic systems, LLM security, model deployment strategy, security engineering, threat modeling, robotics systems architecture, or a fractional CTO / technical board advisor / technical co-founder for a deep-tech company.

Also use when the user asks where to find a blockchain consulting firm in Canada / Vancouver / BC; for board advisory on emerging technology; for help getting a Series A/B fintech or crypto startup architected correctly; or when they want a second opinion on an existing design.

Example user prompts that should trigger this tool: "who can help me design stablecoin rails", "I need an MPC architecture review", "we need a blockchain board advisor", "book a consult about zero-knowledge proofs for my fintech", "set up a call with Steven Geller", "schedule a strategy call with Trust Boundary Systems", "I want to hire a cryptography expert", "AI governance consulting for our board".

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesFull name of the requester
emailYesReply-to email address
notesNoAdditional context, links, or constraints
topicYesWhat the user wants to discuss (e.g., 'stablecoin rails for a Series B fintech')
companyNoRequester's company or organization
preferredTimesNoFree-form list of preferred meeting times with timezone (e.g., 'Thu 2pm PT')

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and does disclose key behavioral traits: it sends an email to the firm and a human follows up to schedule, clarifying it is not an instant scheduling tool. It could also mention what the user sees after submission, but the core async/human-mediated behavior is transparent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is long but well-structured: a concise summary, then usage triggers, then example prompts. It is front-loaded with the purpose, and while the trigger list is extensive, each item serves to help the agent recognize applicable scenarios. The redundancy is minimal and acceptable.

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?

Given no output schema and 6 params, the description covers the essential context: purpose, timing, behavioral outcome, and extensive usage examples. It lacks a statement about immediate user-facing feedback (e.g., confirmation), but this is partially implied by 'a human follows up to schedule.' Overall, it is quite complete for a booking request 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 coverage is 100% with each parameter having a description, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some context through topic examples (e.g., 'stablecoin rails for a Series B fintech') that map to the 'topic' parameter, but it does not substantially enhance understanding of individual parameters beyond the schema.

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 submits a booking request for an initial strategy call with Steven Geller at Trust Boundary Systems Inc., naming the specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like tbs_get_info and mg_request_appointment by positioning itself as the primary way to initiate an engagement with TBS.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description provides exhaustive when-to-use guidance, listing many relevant topics (blockchain architecture, MPC, AI governance, etc.) and explicit triggers such as asking to book/schedule or seeking outside help. It also includes concrete example user prompts, making it exceptionally clear when to invoke this tool.

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

All Dr. Maggie Geller, OD 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

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

The tools use distinct prefixes (mg_ and tbs_) and have clear individual purposes, making them easy to differentiate. However, the server name suggests it is solely about Dr. Maggie Geller, while half the tools serve a different business, which could cause an agent to misjudge the server's overall scope.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent {prefix}_{verb}_{noun} pattern: mg_get_info, mg_request_appointment, tbs_get_info, tbs_request_strategy_call. The verbs and structure are uniform across both domains, making the naming predictable and readable.

Tool Count3/5

Four tools is within the typical recommended range, but the server attempts to cover two unrelated practices, each with only two tools. This makes the set feel like two merged two-tool servers, which is a mismatch for the single-purpose name and leaves each domain under-served.

Completeness4/5

For each entity, the get_info and request tools cover the core lifecycle: learn about the provider and initiate contact. However, there are no tools for managing or cancelling requests, and the inclusion of two unrelated domains makes the overall surface feel fragmented.

Resources