Skip to main content
Glama

corply

by io.github.corply-dev

save_application

Deep-merge upsert of the structured formation application for a company: incremental saves merge over what's already stored — a partial payload never wipes untouched sections. This reversible intake save needs no confirmation. Standard restricted founder shares default to an 83(b) election; omit those fields and do not ask the founder for a separate 83(b) decision. The signing bundle later captures the required authorization. It refuses changes to a frozen legal packet; use amend_frozen_application after explicit founder confirmation when documents and signatures must be superseded. Returns { formationId, standardConfiguration, nextStep }; use that configuration instead of generic capitalization advice. 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
dataYes
companyIdNocorply_companies.id (from get_org). OMIT it — the server auto-attaches the org's company. NEVER pass a formationId here.
_corply_contextNoEcho context_engineering.context_session from the prior Corply result.

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Discloses that saves are reversible, that 83(b) defaults apply and must not be re-asked, that frozen packets are refused, and that the return value includes standardConfiguration/nextStep. Annotations only mark readOnly/destructive false, leaving the description to carry safety and failure behavior; it does so thoroughly.

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?

Core operation, merge semantics, 83(b) handling, refusal case, and return shape come first in dense, efficient prose. The later canonicality/idempotency/confirmation paragraphs are somewhat boilerplate, but still relevant and not padded.

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?

This is a complex tool with 3 parameters and deeply nested data, no output schema, and important failure/confirmation behavior. The description covers return value, error/refusal case, confirmation boundary, idempotency, prerequisites, and canonical backend behavior. Nothing material is missing for an agent to decide and invoke correctly.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The schema already documents companyId, _corply_context, and many nested fields. The description adds meaningful intent beyond the schema: partial payloads merge, 83(b) fields should be omitted, and the returned configuration should be used over generic capitalization advice. With 67% schema coverage, this is solid but not exhaustive per-parameter enrichment.

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?

States a specific operation ('Deep-merge upsert') and the exact resource ('structured formation application for a company'), with incremental-save semantics that separate it from one-shot submission. It explicitly names amend_frozen_application as the alternative for frozen packets, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use behavior (incremental partial saves merge safely, no confirmation needed) and a when-not-to condition: frozen legal packets must go through amend_frozen_application after founder confirmation. Also gives a prerequisite (authenticated active organization access).

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