corply

record_operating_fact

Record a typed, versioned company or subject fact and freshly resolve the plan. High-impact facts become canonical only with the registry's required confirmation/evidence. Never infer immigration status, work authorization, tax/legal conclusions, or other restricted facts; record explicit evidence or a qualified professional determination. A non-promoted candidate is not safe to treat as true. 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

Name	Required	Description	Default
`value`	Yes	Typed JSON value matching the inspected fact definition.
`factKey`	Yes	Registry key without company./subject. prefix, e.g. entity.formed or work.authorization_basis.
`companyId`	No	corply_companies.id. May be omitted only when the active organization has exactly one company.
`expiresAt`	No
`itemLimit`	Yes	Maximum items returned per actionable/blocked/waiting section.
`sourceRef`	Yes	Stable provenance reference; do not put a secret or raw document body here.
`subjectId`	No	Required for subject-scoped facts (people, locations, products, offerings, customers, vendors, contracts, awards, accounts, or obligations); omit for company facts.
`confidence`	No
`provenance`	No	Non-secret structured provenance metadata.
`sourceType`	Yes	Provenance class, e.g. user_assertion, document, external_system, operator, or professional.
`trustLevel`	No
`effectiveTo`	No
`effectiveFrom`	No
`questionLimit`	Yes	Maximum targeted missing-fact questions returned.
`_corply_context`	No	Echo context_engineering.context_session from the prior Corply result.
`confirmationKind`	Yes		none
`evidenceEventIds`	No
`sourceObservedAt`	No

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the sparse annotations, the description discloses canonicality rules, confirmation/evidence requirements, the danger of treating non-promoted candidates as true, backend action semantics, idempotency/retry behavior, and prerequisites. It also warns against inferring restricted facts. No contradiction with readOnlyHint=false or destructiveHint=false.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with purpose and uses labeled sections for prerequisites, canonicality, idempotency, and confirmation. Some phrases are boilerplate or vague ('every prerequisite stated above', the long confirmation-boundary list), which slightly dilutes focus.

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?

Given 18 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and basic annotations, the description covers the main behavioral contract and references returned actual_tool_output and context_engineering. It leaves some operational detail to the schema, but the core invocation semantics are adequately addressed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 56%, and the description adds policy-level context relevant to sourceType and confirmationKind (evidence, professional determination, non-promoted candidates). However, it adds little per-parameter meaning for time windows, confidence/trustLevel, evidenceEventIds, or _corply_context, so the burden is only partially compensated.

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 opening sentence clearly states a concrete action ('Record ... fact') and the resource scope ('company or subject fact'), plus the side effect of resolving the plan. It does not explicitly name sibling tools such as record_operating_event or record_operating_evidence, so the differentiator is implicit rather than stated.

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 provides clear context for when recording is appropriate, explicit exclusions for restricted facts without evidence, and a confirmation boundary ('no additional confirmation is needed'). It does not explicitly contrast alternatives like submit_operating_fact_evidence, so the when-to-use versus alternatives guidance is partial.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All corply tools Inspect

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.

record_operating_fact

Input Schema

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

TDQS

Resources