Skip to main content
Glama

corply

by io.github.corply-dev

await_payment

Wait for the incorporation payment to land. Returns {status: 'paid'|'pending'|'expired'|'unpaid'}. Call it in a LOOP until it returns 'paid' — do not call request_signature, invite_cofounders, or submit_for_formation before then; they refuse with PAYMENT_REQUIRED. 'expired' → run request_payment again for a fresh link. 'unpaid' → no session yet; run request_payment first. Each call waits at most ~8 seconds by design — long-held requests get killed by the gateway. Call it REPEATEDLY until it returns 'paid'; a 'pending' result includes retryAfterSeconds. Prerequisite: authenticated active organization access plus every prerequisite stated above. Canonicality: invokes the shared backend action; trust the returned actual_tool_output and context_engineering instead of adding a state-recovery call. Idempotency: obey the tool-specific retry key or guarantee; if none is stated, inspect refreshed state before retrying. Confirmation boundary: no additional confirmation is needed for this read, reversible save, explicit fact/evidence record, link preparation, plan refresh, or action pre-authorized by a standing founder-configured policy.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
formationIdYes
maxWaitSecondsNoSeconds to wait before returning (ceiling ~10s — the gateway kills longer-held requests).
_corply_contextNoEcho context_engineering.context_session from the prior Corply result.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Discloses important hidden behaviors beyond annotations: the ~8-second per-call wait, the gateway killing long-held requests, retryAfterSeconds on 'pending', and the fact that returned outputs should be trusted rather than supplemented with state-recovery calls. This materially helps an agent invoke it correctly even though annotations already mark it non-destructive.

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 longer than average and includes generic boilerplate about canonicality, idempotency, and confirmation boundaries, but the core operational content is front-loaded and each status-handling branch earns its place. The length is justified by the polling complexity.

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?

For a polling tool with no output schema, the description fully explains the statuses, loop behavior, timeout, prerequisites, and coordination with sibling tools. An agent has enough context to use it correctly in a multi-step formation workflow without needing to infer return shapes or failure modes.

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 67%, with formationId left undocumented. The description reinforces maxWaitSeconds' ceiling via the gateway note but adds little for formationId beyond the obvious 'incorporation' context. It does not fully compensate for the undocumented required parameter, but it does not mislead either.

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 states a specific verb-resource pair ('Wait for the incorporation payment') and precisely defines its return value as one of four statuses. It clearly differentiates from siblings like request_payment and get_payment_pipeline_status by framing this as the blocking/polling step.

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?

Explicitly instructs the agent to call in a loop until 'paid', names the exact sibling tools that must not be called before that point, and gives per-status next actions ('expired' → request_payment, 'unpaid' → request_payment). This is model usage guidance.

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

All corply 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

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

There is notable overlap among status/read tools (get_company_briefing, get_status, get_org, whoami) and a dense cluster of payment-related tools (request_payment, await_payment, create_payment_project, create_payment_route_draft, etc.). The detailed descriptions help differentiate them, but agents could still misselect when the surface is this large.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names overwhelmingly follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., create_payment_route_draft, record_operating_event, start_bank_onboarding). Minor exceptions like 'whoami', 'recall', and 'remember' are acceptable single-verb commands, so the naming is highly consistent overall.

Tool Count2/5

At 52 tools, the server far exceeds the 25+ threshold for 'too many'. While the breadth of domains (formation, payments, cap table, operating compliance) somewhat justifies the count, it still feels heavy and likely increases selection errors and cognitive load for agents.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers the full formation lifecycle (save, validate, generate, sign, submit), payment handling, bank onboarding, cap table management, and operating records/evidence workflows. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no update/delete for existing companies, no explicit company dissolution), but the core workflows are well covered.

Resources