Skip to main content
Glama

Corply — Start and run your company

by io.github.corply-dev
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Review company formation, equity and compliance

get_company_briefing

Use for a broad company briefing, company disambiguation, or a founder asking what matters next. It is not a prerequisite for a goal-specific tool because every Corply result now carries server-authored context continuation. Returns the privacy-filtered caller/company context, lifecycle origin, formation/payment/filing/document/signature state, standard Delaware C-corp configuration, deterministic operating plan, and execution boundaries. Prerequisite: an authenticated active company member. No confirmation is required; resolving may materialize the same deterministic canonical plan but creates no external side effect. This connection acts in one company; switch companies before working on another company from whoami. Prerequisite: authenticated active company 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
companyIdNo
itemLimitNo
questionLimitNo
_corply_contextNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • removedInput schema / properties / _corply_context / description
      Removed value: -"Echo context_engineering.context_session from the prior Corply result."
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / _corply_context
      Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "dependentRequired": {
+    "receipt": [
+      "id"
+    ]
+  },
+  "description": "Echo context_engineering.context_session from the prior Corply result.",
+  "properties": {
+    "id": {
+      "maxLength": 200,
+      "minLength": 16,
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "receipt": {
+      "maxLength": 2048,
+      "minLength": 16,
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  3. Added

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations supply readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, and the description adds meaningful context beyond them: it explains that resolving 'may materialize the same deterministic canonical plan but creates no external side effect', that no confirmation is required, and it states the auth prerequisite (authenticated active company member) plus idempotency/retry and canonicality rules. That reconciles the otherwise-surprising readOnlyHint=false for a 'get_' tool. It does not cover rate limits or the shape of the response, keeping it below 5.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The core purpose is buried in the second sentence behind a usage clause, and the text then repeats itself ('Prerequisite: an authenticated active company member' followed later by 'Prerequisite: authenticated active company access plus every prerequisite stated above'). Phrases like 'every prerequisite stated above' and the generic idempotency/confirmation-boundary boilerplate add length without adding tool-specific information.

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

Completeness3/5

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

There is no output schema, and the description compensates well by enumerating what is returned (caller/company context, lifecycle origin, formation/payment/filing/document/signature state, deterministic operating plan, execution boundaries). What is missing for a zero-required-parameter read tool is any documentation of the three real input parameters and how to scope/paginate via itemLimit and questionLimit.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% for 4 parameters, so the description must carry the load and it does not: companyId, itemLimit, and questionLimit are never mentioned, nor is _corply_context. The only implicit hint is 'This connection acts in one company; switch companies before working on another company from whoami', which gestures at company scoping without telling the agent what the parameters do or their semantics.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a clear verb+resource in the second sentence ('Returns the privacy-filtered caller/company context, lifecycle origin, formation/payment/filing/document/signature state...'), which is specific. It also seeds usage ('broad company briefing, company disambiguation, or a founder asking what matters next') but never contrasts itself by sibling tool name, so the agent must infer the boundary against tools like get_org, get_cap_table, get_status from the list alone.

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?

It gives explicit use cases (broad briefing, disambiguation, 'what matters next') and an explicit exclusion: 'It is not a prerequisite for a goal-specific tool because every Corply result now carries server-authored context continuation.' That is genuine when/when-not guidance. It stops short of naming the alternative tools it is routing away from, and the surrounding canonicality/idempotency boilerplate dilutes it.

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

All Corply — Start and run your company toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources