Skip to main content
Glama

corply

by io.github.corply-dev

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/org/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 organization member. No confirmation is required; resolving may materialize the same deterministic canonical plan but creates no external side effect. When multiple companies exist, pass companyId and never guess. 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
companyIdNo
itemLimitNo
questionLimitNo
_corply_contextNoEcho context_engineering.context_session from the prior Corply result.

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Even with annotations present, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: no external side effect, possible internal materialization of a canonical plan, no confirmation required, canonicality guidance, and idempotency/retry instructions. These go beyond the raw annotations and help an agent predict side effects. No contradiction with annotations detected.

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 description is verbose and repetitive. 'Prerequisite' appears twice with overlapping meaning, and the confirmation boundary, canonicality, and idempotency paragraphs read like generic boilerplate pasted in. It front-loads the use cases well, but many sentences do not earn their place.

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?

The description covers return content, prerequisites, side-effect profile, and retry behavior, which is helpful given no output schema. However, it does not explain itemLimit/questionLimit semantics or what the returned context_engineering/actual_tool_output structure looks like, leaving the definition incomplete for a tool with four parameters and no output schema.

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 only 25%, so the description must do significant work to explain parameters. It mentions companyId's role for multi-company disambiguation, but itemLimit and questionLimit are left entirely unexplained. This is a notable gap for an agent deciding how to invoke the tool correctly.

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 clearly identifies the tool's purpose: broad company briefing, disambiguation, and a founder asking what matters next. It enumerates the returned content areas and distinguishes itself from goal-specific tools, which helps an agent separate it from siblings like get_org, get_status, and resolve_company_plan.

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 trigger conditions ('broad company briefing, company disambiguation, or a founder asking what matters next') and a negative guidance ('not a prerequisite for a goal-specific tool'). It also provides actionable instruction for multiple companies: pass companyId and never guess. It could still name concrete sibling alternatives, but the guidance is sufficient.

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