Skip to main content
Glama

Corply — Start and run your company

by io.github.corply-dev
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Prepare the secure 83(b) taxpayer-number link

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 for an elected 83(b) after that founder has signed; fully vested SPA purchases never use this tool. 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 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
founderIdNo
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. Added

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Adds genuinely useful traits beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false): reversibility, refresh without confirmation, and the strong rule that a TIN is never stored as a DB field and reaches Ops only as an encrypted mail-ready PDF. Some of the tail text (Canonicality/Idempotency/Confirmation boundary) is generic boilerplate repeated across many tools, so it dilutes the tool-specific value, but the security-relevant disclosures are real.

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 earns its place, but it is followed by a block of generic policy boilerplate (canonicality, idempotency, confirmation boundary) that applies to many tools rather than this one. Size is moderate but a meaningful share of it is template text, not tool-specific.

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?

With no output schema, the description should describe the return and the parameters more fully. It covers prerequisites and behavioral boundaries well but omits what the caller gets back (a link? actual_tool_output shape) and leaves all three parameters undocumented, which is a real gap for a 0%-coverage schema.

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 3 parameters, so the description must carry the semantics and largely does not. It hints that founderId relates to 'that founder has signed' and formationId to 'active company access', but never explains formationId vs founderId roles or the _corply_context id/receipt pair.

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?

Specific verb (create) plus resource (a short-lived, one-time external-browser link for TIN entry) and the exact document context (signed 83(b) election). An agent can tell this apart from siblings like request_signature or resend_taxpayer_link without opening a schema.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('only for an elected 83(b) after that founder has signed') and when-not ('fully vested SPA purchases never use this tool'). Prerequisites (authenticated active company access) are also stated, leaving nothing to inference.

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