Skip to main content
Glama

Corply — Start and run your company

by io.github.corply-dev
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Report a task as done

mark_task_done

Report one of YOUR post-incorporation tasks as done (for example, opening your bank account) with an optional note. Corply's team verifies and completes it — status becomes 'pending review'. Only works for tasks assigned to the founder. 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
noteNo
stepKeyYes
_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

B3.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), the description discloses meaningful behavior: Corply's team verifies and the status becomes 'pending review', plus idempotency and canonicality guidance. The confirmation-boundary sentence is a generic menu that awkwardly calls the operation "this read" despite readOnlyHint=false, but it does not rise to a genuine contradiction since the clause also covers "reversible save," which fits this action.

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 first sentence is well front-loaded and specific, but the trailing Canonicality / Idempotency / Confirmation-boundary sentences are generic templates that dilute the message. Size is moderate and rear-loaded with boilerplate rather than task-specific content.

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?

For a mutation tool with no output schema and 0% parameter coverage, the description covers the verification workflow, prerequisite, and idempotency well, but omits any explanation of the required stepKey and the context object. An agent could invoke it, but must guess at how to identify the task.

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 all three parameters. The description only touches one of them loosely ("with an optional note") and says nothing about the required stepKey or the nested _corply_context object, so the required parameter is undocumented in both schema and description.

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 specific verb and resource: "Report one of YOUR post-incorporation tasks as done," reinforced with a concrete example ("opening your bank account"). It is clear what the tool does, but it never names or contrasts a sibling tool (e.g., record_existing_completion), so differentiation is left to inference.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It provides a real scope exclusion ("Only works for tasks assigned to the founder") and a prerequisite (authenticated active company access plus every prerequisite stated above), which is useful context. However, it never names an alternative tool or the conditions under which a different tool should be used, so usage is only implied.

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