Skip to main content
Glama

Corply — Start and run your company

by io.github.corply-dev
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Validate the formation application

validate_application

Validate the formation application and return structured validationIssues whose kind distinguishes absent inputs from saved-but-invalid values. Promotes the formation to 'ready' when complete and returns the server-authoritative standardConfiguration with the canonical nextStep. 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
formationIdYes
_corply_contextNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • removedInput schema / properties / _corply_context / description
      Removed value: -"Echo context_engineering.context_session from the prior Corply result."
  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. First observed

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: the semantics of validationIssues kinds, the promotion-to-'ready' side effect, the server-authoritative return, plus idempotency and confirmation-boundary guidance. The boilerplate confirmation sentence labels the operation as 'this read' even though annotations set readOnlyHint=false and the description itself describes a state promotion, creating mild read/write ambiguity rather than a hard contradiction.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and the idempotency/canonicality sentences are informative, but the closing confirmation-boundary sentence is a long seven-way disjunction of generic cases that does not earn its place, and the prerequisite clause refers to content that does not exist in the text.

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?

With no output schema, the description does carry some return semantics (validationIssues, standardConfiguration, canonical nextStep), which helps. But it omits failure behavior (what happens to the formation when validation fails), any detail on the undocumented parameters, and rests on dangling/boilerplate prerequisite and confirmation text.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is 0% for 2 parameters (required formationId plus the nested _corply_context object), so the description bears the full documentation burden. It never explains what formationId identifies, what form it takes, or what _corply_context/id/receipt are for, leaving both parameters opaque.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: validate the formation application and return structured validationIssues, with a clear outcome (promotion to 'ready'). It does not name or differentiate from the obvious siblings (save_application, submit_for_formation, amend_frozen_application), so an agent must infer routing.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives a prerequisite and a routing hint ('trust the returned actual_tool_output and context_engineering instead of adding a state-recovery call'), which is useful. However it never states when to choose this over save_application or submit_for_formation, and the prerequisite is a dangling reference to 'every prerequisite stated above' with nothing above it in the definition.

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