Skip to main content
Glama

Corply — Start and run your company

by io.github.corply-dev
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Email cofounders their signing links

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; those go out automatically when founders are saved (invite_member resends). 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 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: obtain fresh, explicit user confirmation before calling.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
formationIdYes
_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. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and the description supplements this with delivery behavior (links go directly to each cofounder, shown here only on email failure), idempotency guidance, and a confirmation boundary. Much of this is generic template text (canonicality, retry-key boilerplate) that is not specific to this action, but the concrete delivery and failure semantics add real value.

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 key prerequisite and trigger are front-loaded in the first sentences, but the body includes several boilerplate sections (Canonicality, Idempotency, Confirmation boundary) that read as reusable template text rather than tool-specific guidance, inflating 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?

For a write-type, high-impact email action with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, auth requirements, delivery/failure behavior, idempotency, and confirmation boundary. The notable omission is any explanation of the input parameters.

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% with two parameters (formationId required, plus the nested _corply_context). The description never explains what formationId identifies or what _corply_context is for, so it does not compensate for the documentation gap in the schema.

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+resource: emails each OTHER listed founder's pending review-and-sign link after documents are generated. It explicitly distinguishes itself from invite_member (which 'resends') and clarifies it 'never creates or refreshes membership invitations', so an agent can route correctly.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger condition ('Only run when the lead explicitly asks'), a prerequisite chain (fee must be PAID first via request_payment → await_payment, documents generated), and names the alternative path (invite_member). Usage is unambiguous.

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