Skip to main content
Glama

corply

by io.github.corply-dev

import_cap_table

Destructive

Import a cap table from a Carta/Pulley CSV export (one-way — Corply becomes the system of record). Owner/founder only. Call with confirm:false first to PREVIEW the parsed holders; confirming REPLACES the company's entire existing cap table with the imported set. 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: obtain fresh, explicit user confirmation before calling.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
csvYes
sourceNo
confirmNo
companyIdNo
idempotencyKeyNoStable retry key for the confirmed replace-all import.
_corply_contextNoEcho context_engineering.context_session from the prior Corply result.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The annotations already flag destructiveHint, and the description goes much further by disclosing that the tool is one-way, replaces the entire existing cap table, and is restricted to owners/founders. It also adds canonicality, idempotency, and confirmation-boundary guidance not present in the schema or annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and the destructive consequence, then organized with labeled operational constraints. Some boilerplate, such as 'plus every prerequisite stated above,' is vague, but the description remains efficient, dense, and scannable.

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 destructive import with no output schema, the description covers the critical workflow, permissions, confirmation boundary, and idempotency. Missing details like csv content/format and companyId semantics are a gap, but the core risks and the preview-then-confirm pattern are fully disclosed.

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 33%, so the description must compensate, but it only partially does. It explains confirm (preview vs replace) and implies source via 'Carta/Pulley CSV', but csv, companyId, and exact source behavior remain largely unexplained.

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 (Import), resource (cap table), source format (Carta/Pulley CSV), and the one-way consequence. It clearly differentiates this from read-style siblings like get_cap_table by positioning it as the write/replace path.

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?

Provides an explicit call sequence: call with confirm:false first to preview, then confirm to replace. It also restricts usage to owner/founder and requires fresh user confirmation. It does not explicitly name an alternative like get_cap_table, but the workflow is clear enough that an agent knows how to invoke it safely.

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