cap_table.fully_dilutedRead unsaved fully diluted ownership including modeled SAFE/note conversions. Requires Startup or higher; conversion valuation is whole USD.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_id | Yes | ||
| cap_table_id | Yes | ||
| conversion_valuation | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the read-only behavior is established. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: the ownership is 'unsaved,' conversions are modeled, an auth tier is required, and conversion valuation must be whole USD. No contradiction with annotations.
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?
The description is two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the action and scope, then adds the two most important constraints: plan requirement and unit format.
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?
With an output schema, strong read-only annotations, and the key auth/unit details in the description, the definition is largely complete. The only minor gap is not explicitly routing the agent relative to closely related cap_table siblings like dilution_preview or simulate_raise, but this is not critical given the clear 'unsaved modeled' framing.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add real semantics for conversion_valuation by stating that it is a modeled SAFE/note conversion value and must be whole USD. project_id and cap_table_id are not elaborated, but their names and the tool name make them self-explanatory.
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 begins with a specific verb, 'Read,' and names the exact resource: 'unsaved fully diluted ownership including modeled SAFE/note conversions.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from plain cap table reads or writes by emphasizing the modeled/unsaved state.
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 clear context for when to call this tool: when the user needs fully diluted ownership with modeled SAFE/note conversions, and it adds the license requirement ('Startup or higher'). It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or say when not to use it, but the intended scenario is specific enough.
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.
Domain prefixes (crm., cap_table., landing.) clearly separate broad modules, and most tools target a specific resource and action. However, within modules there are boundary overlaps—crm.add_contact_note vs crm.log_activity and cap_table.dilution_preview vs cap_table.simulate_raise—where descriptions must be read carefully to avoid a wrong pick.
The dominant pattern is module.verb_noun (e.g., crm.create_lead, cap_table.update_stakeholder), which is clear and readable. But a subset of top-level tools uses object_verb with flat underscores (e.g., shortlink_create, qr_generate, campaign_archive) and one outlier (campaign_stats) breaks the verb pattern, so conventions are mixed.
86 tools is an extreme surface for any single MCP server, well past the 50+ threshold that makes coherent selection impractical. Even though the features span several business domains, this would be far more usable split into focused servers per module.
The covered domains are broadly complete: cap table, CRM, incorporation, landing, projects, sparkroom, tasks, and validation all have read/write workflows with few dead ends. Minor gaps remain (no campaign listing/update, no branding palette delete/update, no contact deletion) but none of them blocks the main product workflows.