Skip to main content
Glama

corply

by io.github.corply-dev

request_signature

Requires the incorporation fee to be PAID first (request_payment → await_payment). Phase-aware and idempotent: before Delaware acceptance it prepares each founder's one filing-stage bundle. The incorporator's bundle includes the Certificate of Incorporation; every founder's bundle includes the narrow Founder Formation Authorization for the enumerated standard post-acceptance records. After acceptance, standard-v1 records are executed from that stored authorization and must never become a second human signature request. Only a legacy formation that predates the authorization can return a post-acceptance signing bundle. Once an authorized founder's RSPA is fully executed and establishes the stock-purchase date, Corply prepares and executes that founder's 83(b) automatically from the same stored authority. This preparatory action needs no confirmation and sends no cofounder email. It returns only the caller's safe server-issued signing bundle and review link; present reviewUrl as a markdown link. Use the separately confirmed invite_cofounders or nudge_signer action for external messages. 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
formationIdYes
_corply_contextNoEcho context_engineering.context_session from the prior Corply result.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Far exceeds the minimal annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). It discloses phase-dependent behavior, idempotency, that no cofounder email is sent, automatic 83(b) preparation, no confirmation needed, and the canonicality instruction to trust returned output rather than issue a state-recovery call. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is a verbose wall of text with several layers of conditional behavior and ends in boilerplate-style Canonicality/Idempotency/Confirmation-boundary paragraphs. Nearly every sentence carries information, but the prose is convoluted and poorly structured; the same content could be delivered in half the length.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Exceptionally complete for a complex, phase-aware action with no output schema: it covers prerequisites, before/after-acceptance behavior, what is returned (signing bundle + reviewUrl presented as markdown), when NOT to call, retry rules, and confirmation boundaries. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 50% — formationId is undocumented. The description never defines formationId explicitly, but its surrounding context (incorporation fee, Delaware acceptance, founder bundles) makes the parameter's referent clear. The _corply_context param is covered by the schema, and the description's canonicality/context_engineering mention reinforces it. Modest added value, borderline compensation.

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 conveys a specific action — preparing a phase-aware signature bundle and returning it to the caller — and explicitly separates itself from external-messaging siblings by naming invite_cofounders and nudge_signer. However, the core purpose is never crisply stated ('requests a signature') and must be extracted from dense procedural prose, so some inference is required.

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?

Excellent routing guidance: it states the hard precondition (incorporation fee paid, request_payment → await_payment), a firm exclusion ('must never become a second human signature request' after acceptance), and directs external messages to invite_cofounders or nudge_signer. Prerequisites, idempotent-retry behavior, and the confirmation boundary are all explicit.

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