Skip to main content
Glama

corply

by io.github.corply-dev

run_sandbox_payout_probe

After fresh founder confirmation of the exact USD 0.01 Moov sandbox payout, send one cent from one exact settled diagnostic payment through Corply's durable payout command to the route's server-resolved verified standard-ACH bank. The tool accepts no amount, currency, provider ID, wallet, bank/card data, or payout destination. It requires the exact paymentKey, active sandbox route, fresh zero-variance reconciliation, and verified bank. This is test-mode money movement only; the scheduled worker records the provider's exact after-the-fact payout fee from transfer and wallet evidence before reconciliation can pass. It cannot move live money or enable production. 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
routeIdYes
companyIdNo
paymentKeyYes
confirmationYes
_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?

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds rich behavioral context: test-mode only, the scheduled worker records the after-the-fact payout fee, canonicality guidance to trust returned output, idempotency handling, and a confirmation-boundary policy. This goes well beyond the structured annotations.

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 long but well-fragmented with labels like Prerequisite, Canonicality, Idempotency, and Confirmation boundary. The core action is front-loaded. Some boilerplate phrases are generic, but they earn their place for an agent needing operational guidance on retries and confirmations.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should clarify return behavior; it only says to trust actual_tool_output. It covers side effects, prerequisites, and limitations thoroughly, but omits the purpose of the optional companyId parameter and gives no detail about the returned output structure. For a complex money-movement tool, these gaps matter.

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 only 20%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that no amount, currency, provider ID, wallet, bank/card data, or destination are accepted and that paymentKey and an active route are required. However, it does not explain companyId, the confirmation constant, or _corply_context, leaving significant parameter meaning unresolved.

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 clearly states a specific action: send one cent from a settled diagnostic payment via Corply's durable payout command to a server-resolved verified ACH bank. It names the exact resource, amount, mode, and route, and distinguishes the payout purpose from sibling tools like run_sandbox_payment_probe.

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 clear usage context: only after fresh founder confirmation, only in Moov sandbox, and only with an exact paymentKey, active route, zero-variance reconciliation, and verified bank. It explicitly excludes live-money usage, though it does not name the alternative tool to use when these conditions are not met.

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