Skip to main content
Glama

Blackbook Protocol Advisor

by io.github.koynlabs

Prepare portal fill

prepare_portal_fill

Map intake facts to a fill_fields payload for TRS or Companies House PSC. Secrets (auth code) are listed but never filled. Call after Owner login; align labels with list_fillable_fields. Never maps the Trust as a PSC organisation.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
intakeYesStructured Owner facts for Protocol coaching and portal field mapping
formFamilyNoPortal family to map. Example: COMPANIES_HOUSE_PSC

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
boundaryYesEducational / non-advice boundary when the tool includes one

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description discloses important behavioral nuances beyond the annotations: secrets are listed but never filled, and the Trust should never be mapped as a PSC organisation. This adds meaningful safety and scope context.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and followed by high-value caveats. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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?

Given the output schema exists and the input schema is fully documented, the description covers the essential operational context: target forms, timing, label alignment, secret handling, and a critical exclusion. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke 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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters, including the formFamily enum and intake object fields. The description does not add much parameter-level detail beyond naming the two target families, which is sufficient given schema coverage.

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 the specific operation: mapping intake facts to a fill_fields payload, and explicitly names the two target portal families (TRS and Companies House PSC). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like fill_fields and list_fillable_fields.

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 clear contextual guidance: call after Owner login and align labels with list_fillable_fields. It also warns about a key edge case (never map the Trust as a PSC organisation), though it does not explicitly discuss when to choose this over related tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Blackbook Protocol Advisor 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Each tool occupies a distinct step in the intake-to-submission pipeline, with clearly paired tools like prepare_submit_confirmation/confirm_and_submit. A few knowledge/checklist tools such as get_module_playbook, get_skill, and search_book could overlap at the margins, but their descriptions separate modules, workflow skills, and cited passages well enough.

Naming Consistency4/5

The set overwhelmingly follows lower_snake_case action_object naming like get_*, list_*, prepare_*, fill_fields, and open_portal. Minor deviations such as confirm_and_submit and wait_for_user_ready are still imperative and readable, so the naming remains predictable overall.

Tool Count3/5

At 25 tools, the server sits at the top of the 'heavy but borderline' range. The broad advisory/portal-automation scope mostly justifies the count, but several browser-session helpers and guidance/checklist tools could plausibly be consolidated without losing core capability.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers the full workflow: intake, risk assessment, guidance, module/skill selection, drafting and review bundles, self-serve or assisted browsing, form filling, and guarded submission. Minor gaps like updating intake data or checking post-submission status are workable rather than fatal.

Resources