incorporation.submit_to_sparklaunchCreate or read an internal SparkLaunch Filing Operations receipt; no Delaware or NWRA transmission occurs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| case_id | Yes | ||
| project_id | Yes | ||
| locked_version | Yes | ||
| idempotency_key | Yes | ||
| confirmation_token | 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?
The description says the tool only creates or reads an internal receipt, but the annotations mark destructiveHint=true. This is a direct contradiction: a create/read operation is not obviously destructive, and the description does not disclose what destructive side effects may occur. The no-transmission statement adds useful context, but the unresolved conflict with annotations is serious.
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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It immediately states the operation, the resource, and the critical non-transmission constraint, making every word informative.
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 tool with five parameters, no paramter descriptions, and a destructiveHint, the description is too thin. It does not explain the meaning of locked_version or idempotency_key, what happens on duplicate submission, or what destructive effects may occur. The output schema may cover return values, but the missing side-effect and parameter context leaves the agent under-informed.
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 by explaining the parameters, but it does not. Parameter names like projet_id and case_id are self-explanatory, but locked_version and idempotency_key have important semantics that are left entirely to the agent to infer.
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 verb and resource: it creates or reads an internal SparkLaunch Filing Operations receipt. It also explicitly says no Delaware or NWRA transmission occurs, which clearly differentiates it from external filing tools like incorporation.start_case.
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 description communicates a clear usage boundary: use this when an internal receipt is needed, not when actual Delaware/NWRA transmission is required. It does not name an explicit alternative tool or provide when-not-to-use conditions, but the scope is clear enough for routing.
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.