Well

Create company

well_create_company

Create a new company in the current workspace.

Use this tool when the user asks to create, add, or register a new company.

REQUIRED: name OPTIONAL: description

After creation, enrichment (logo, domain, industry, tax ID, description fill-in) runs asynchronously in the background. The new company is available immediately for follow-up actions, but enriched fields may take a few seconds to populate — re-query after a brief delay to see them.

Returns { success: true, company_id, name } on success, or { success: false, error } on failure.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Company name (required)
`description`	No	Brief company description
`workspace_id`	No	Target workspace. Omit when the token authorizes one workspace. Required when it authorizes several — a write lands in exactly one workspace and this call would not say which.
`idempotency_key`	No	Optional client-supplied key. A retried write with the same key returns the original result instead of re-applying the operation.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	No
`error`	No
`success`	Yes
`company_id`	No

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by disclosing that enrichment runs asynchronously, that the company is available immediately, and that enriched fields may take a few seconds to appear. This is practical behavioral context an agent needs to manage user expectations and decide to re-query later.

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?

The description is well-structured and front-loaded: purpose, trigger conditions, parameters, asynchronous behavior, and return value each have a clear place. Every sentence earns its keep with no redundant filler.

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

Completeness5/5

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

The description covers the action, when to use it, required vs. optional parameters, post-creation async behavior, and the success/failure return shape. With rich schema descriptions and annotations also present, nothing essential is missing for an agent to call this tool correctly.

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 schema already documents all parameters well. The description adds a useful REQUIRED/OPTIONAL summary and mentions the current workspace, but it does not meaningfully explain workspace_id or idempotency_key beyond what the schema already provides.

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 action as 'Create a new company in the current workspace' and reinforces it with 'when the user asks to create, add, or register a new company.' This distinctly differentiates it from sibling tools like well_create_person or well_create_invoice_from_data.

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 says when to use this tool: when the user asks to create, add, or register a new company. It names the required and optional parameters but does not explicitly contrast this with updating an existing company via well_update_company, though the 'new company' phrasing largely makes that clear.

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

All Well tools Inspect

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

A4.5/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: CRUD for companies, people, and invoices; financial analytics (cash, cost, runway, holdings); connector management and invocation; schema discovery; querying; reconciliation; and contact channel management. No two tools could be confused for the same action.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow the `well_verb_noun` pattern with consistent verb choices (create, get, list, update, delete, add, remove, run, resolve, query, invoke). The naming is predictable and makes the tool's purpose immediately clear.

Tool Count4/5

With 26 tools, the set is slightly above the ideal 3-15 range, but every tool earns its place given the breadth of the domain (CRM, invoicing, financial analytics, reconciliation, connector management). The count is well-scoped and not excessive.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers core CRUD, financial KPIs, reconciliation, and connector management. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct tool to update contact channels or manage accounts), but the query and schema tools allow agents to work around them, and the primary workflows are fully supported.

Resources

Need Help?