Skip to main content
Glama

corply

by io.github.corply-dev

invite_cofounders

Destructive

Requires the incorporation fee to be PAID first (request_payment → await_payment). Compatibility action that emails each OTHER listed founder's pending review-and-sign link after documents are generated. It never creates or refreshes membership invitations; use invite_member earlier, after explicit founder confirmation. Only run when the lead explicitly asks. Sign links are delivered directly to each cofounder and are shown here only when their email fails. 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
formationIdYes
_corply_contextNoEcho context_engineering.context_session from the prior Corply result.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses the prerequisite payment flow, the compatibility-action behavior, that sign links are only displayed on email failure, the idempotency/retry policy, and the confirmation boundary. These are meaningful behavioral details not inferable from annotations alone.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, but it becomes bloated with generic boilerplate about canonicality, idempotency, and confirmation boundaries. These add operational context but are not tool-specific enough to fully earn their length.

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?

Covers prerequisites, exclusions, retry behavior, confirmation requirements, and expected side effects. It does not describe the success/failure return shape beyond email failures, and with no output schema this is a notable gap, but overall the agent has enough context to invoke it safely.

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 coverage is only 50%; formationId has no description in the schema and the description never explains what formationId should reference. The _corply_context property is documented in the schema, but the most important identifier parameter is left to inference.

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 and resource: it emails each other listed founder's pending review-and-sign link after documents are generated. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from invite_member, making its scope unambiguous.

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 explicit prerequisites (fee paid, docs generated, lead asks), explicit exclusions (never creates/refreshes membership invitations), and names the alternative tool (invite_member) with timing guidance. This is exemplary routing 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