OffshoreProz Agent Company

request_amendment

Record a post-formation change to an existing Agent Company: add or remove a principal, change the agent's mandate (powers, wallets, spending/risk limits), rename the company, change the management model, or add the Wyoming USD subsidiary. Creates an amendment record for the OffshoreProz team to review and file (including any beneficial-owner update with the Nevis registered agent). Like create_formation_request, this NEVER files with a government automatically — it records a request for human review.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "request_id": "<request_id>",
      "amendment_type": "<amendment_type>",
      "details": "<details>"
    },
    "name": "request_amendment"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`details`	Yes	Describe the change precisely — e.g. "Add principal Jane Doe at 10% ownership", "Raise agent per-tx limit to $25k", "Add Wyoming USD subsidiary".
`request_id`	Yes	The request_id (UUID) of the Agent Company to amend.
`requested_by`	No	Name of the person or agent requesting the change (for the audit trail).
`amendment_type`	Yes	The kind of change requested.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses that this only creates a review record routed to the OffshoreProz team, that beneficial-owner updates go through the Nevis registered agent, and that nothing is filed with a government automatically. It omits auth/identity requirements, validation or duplicate-request behavior, and what a caller receives back, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Two sentences: the first front-loads the scope and the concrete change types, the second front-loads the critical non-filing guarantee. Nothing is repeated from the schema and no sentence is filler.

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 a 4-parameter mutation-request tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, categories, and the human-review/filing pipeline well. The remaining gap is return behavior — whether an amendment ID or status is produced and how review progress is tracked — which the description leaves unstated even though no output schema exists to cover it.

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 100%, and each field already carries its own description and examples (request_id UUID, details examples, amendment_type enum). The description lists amendment categories that mirror the enum but adds no syntax, ordering, or 'requested_by' semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Record a post-formation change to an existing Agent Company') and enumerates the concrete change categories (principals, mandate, name, management model, USD subsidiary) that map to the amendment_type enum. It also names the sibling it mirrors (create_formation_request), so an agent can distinguish formation from post-formation amendment without opening a schema.

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 'post-formation change to an existing Agent Company' framing plus the contrast with create_formation_request gives a clear trigger condition. It does not explicitly state exclusions (e.g., 'do not use for a new company' or 'do not use for compliance filings such as order_annual_report'), so routing is strongly implied rather than fully spelled out.

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

All OffshoreProz Agent Company tools Inspect

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.