Skip to main content
Glama

corply

by io.github.corply-dev

await_registered_agent_upgrade

Wait for the $350 lifetime registered-agent upgrade to land. Returns {status:'lifetime'|'pending'|'expired'|'unpaid'}. Call in a LOOP until 'lifetime'. 'expired' → call request_registered_agent_upgrade again for a fresh link. 'unpaid' → no session yet, call request_registered_agent_upgrade first. Each call waits at most ~8 seconds by design, because the gateway kills long-held requests; 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

A3.6/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

Annotation contradiction: the description calls this operation 'this read' in the confirmation boundary, while the annotations set readOnlyHint to false. Under the rubric, a direct contradiction with annotations requires a score of 1. The description otherwise adds useful timing and canonicality context, but the contradiction dominates.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The tool-specific content is well organized and front-loaded with statuses and loop instructions. However, the final three sentences (canonicality, idempotency, confirmation boundary) are generic boilerplate that adds vagueness and length without tool-specific precision.

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?

For a polling tool with no output schema, the description fully covers return values, retry logic, timeout behavior, and the sibling tool to call on failure. It loses a point because phrases like 'every prerequisite stated above' are undefined and formationId semantics are not explained.

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%, so the schema already documents maxWaitSeconds and _corply_context; the description adds the ~8-second gateway ceiling and retryAfterSeconds context. However, the required formationId parameter is left undocumented in both the schema and description, and _corply_context usage is not elaborated beyond its schema description.

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?

States a specific verb (Wait) and resource ($350 lifetime registered-agent upgrade), and enumerates the return statuses. It also names sibling request_registered_agent_upgrade, making the distinction between the wait action and the request action explicit.

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?

Provides an explicit control flow: loop until 'lifetime', call request_registered_agent_upgrade again on 'expired', and call it first on 'unpaid'. The ~8-second wait bound and retryAfterSeconds hint further clarify how to use the tool in practice.

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