Skip to main content
Glama

corply

by io.github.corply-dev

prepare_83b_tin_input

Create a short-lived, one-time external-browser link for the taxpayer to enter the SSN/ITIN required on their exact signed 83(b) election. Use only after that founder has signed. Never ask for, accept, repeat, or place a TIN in chat. The link is reversible and may be refreshed without additional confirmation. Corply never stores the TIN as a database field; Corply Ops receives only a short-lived encrypted mail-ready PDF to print and mail. 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
founderIdNo
formationIdYes
_corply_contextNoEcho context_engineering.context_session from the prior Corply result.

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Despite minimal annotations, the description richly discloses behavior: the link is short-lived, one-time, reversible, refreshable without confirmation, and Corply never stores the TIN as a database field. It also explains canonicality, idempotency, and confirmation-boundary expectations, giving an agent a strong sense of side effects and operational constraints beyond what annotations provide.

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 core purpose and safety constraints are front-loaded and clearly written. However, the last three sentences about canonicality, idempotency, and confirmation boundary are generic boilerplate that adds length without tool-specific detail. The structure is acceptable but not tight.

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 tool with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description covers a lot: lifecycle, TIN privacy, storage behavior, prerequisites, and a note to trust the returned actual_tool_output. Still, it fails to explain the required formationId parameter and the shape of the returned output, leaving an agent to infer important details.

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 33%, and the required formationId has no description in either the schema or the tool description. founderId and _corply_context are also not explained in the description. The phrase 'that founder' and 'their exact signed 83(b) election' hints at the parameters but never maps them to the actual input names, leaving a significant gap.

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?

The description names a specific verb and resource: 'Create a short-lived, one-time external-browser link for the taxpayer to enter the SSN/ITIN.' This clearly identifies the tool's narrow purpose and distinguishes it from sibling tools like request_signature and generate_documents.

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?

The description gives an explicit usage condition: 'Use only after that founder has signed,' and adds firm privacy constraints like 'Never ask for, accept, repeat, or place a TIN in chat.' It also states the prerequisite of authenticated active organization access. It does not explicitly contrast against sibling tools, but the task is unique enough that the context is clear.

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