Skip to main content
Glama

Corply — Start and run your company

by io.github.corply-dev
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Submit evidence for review

submit_operating_fact_evidence

Submit one founder-provided document for an evidence-confirmed operating fact. This stages the exact typed assertion, binds the server-verified immutable artifact, and creates a durable operator-review claim. Submission never makes the fact canonical and the resolver will continue to ask for it until an operator approves the exact claim. filePath/fileHash must come from upload_operating_evidence. 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
titleYes
valueYes
factKeyYes
fileHashYes
filePathYes
companyIdYes
subjectIdYes
idempotencyKeyYes
_corply_contextNo
sourceReferenceYes
sourceObservedAtYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changed
    • removedInput schema / $defs
      Removed value: -{
-  "__schema0": {
-    "anyOf": [
-      {
-        "type": "string"
-      },
-      {
-        "type": "number"
-      },
-      {
-        "type": "boolean"
-      },
-      {
-        "type": "null"
-      },
-      {
-        "items": {
-          "$ref": "#/$defs/__schema0"
-        },
-        "type": "array"
-      },
-      {
-        "additionalProperties": {
-          "$ref": "#/$defs/__schema0"
-        },
-        "propertyNames": {
-          "type": "string"
-        },
-        "type": "object"
-      }
-    ]
-  }
-}
    • removedInput schema / properties / _corply_context / description
      Removed value: -"Echo context_engineering.context_session from the prior Corply result."
    • removedInput schema / properties / value / $ref
      Removed value: -"#/$defs/__schema0"
    • addedInput schema / properties / value / anyOf
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "number"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "boolean"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  },
+  {
+    "items": {},
+    "type": "array"
+  },
+  {
+    "additionalProperties": {},
+    "propertyNames": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "type": "object"
+  }
+]
  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

A4.2/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, yet the description adds substantial context: the write is staged/non-canonical until operator approval, the resolver keeps prompting until the exact claim is approved, idempotency handling, and the confirmation boundary. This resolves the key ambiguity of whether a write here is dangerous or durable.

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 core purpose and staging semantics are front-loaded effectively, but the trailing 'Canonicality/Idempotency/Confirmation boundary' block is largely a generic policy template, including a catch-all confirmation sentence covering unrelated action types, which dilutes the specific guidance.

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?

For an 11-parameter, no-output-schema write tool, the description covers the important non-obvious behavior (staging, non-canonicality, prerequisites, idempotency) and directs the agent to trust the returned actual_tool_output. Parameter-level meaning remains thin, but the workflow context is sufficiently complete to call it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden. It usefully constrains filePath/fileHash to upload_operating_evidence output and gestures at the typed assertion and idempotencyKey, but leaves companyId, subjectId, factKey, value, sourceReference, sourceObservedAt, and title unexplained.

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 verb+resource ('Submit one founder-provided document for an evidence-confirmed operating fact') and describes the exact effect: stages the typed assertion, binds the immutable artifact, and creates a durable operator-review claim. It distinguishes itself from canonical-recording siblings by declaring that submission 'never makes the fact canonical'.

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?

Gives a clear cross-tool dependency ('filePath/fileHash must come from upload_operating_evidence') and states the auth prerequisite of active company access. It implies the when-not condition (use this to stage for review vs. record_operating_fact for canonicalization) but never names the alternative or an explicit exclusion, so a 4 rather than 5.

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