Skip to main content
Glama

Shareflo

by uk.co.shareflo
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

create_holding

The first step of allotting/awarding shares or options to a stakeholder. The tool creates an award proposal for the user, including filling in any default fields. You must then present the returned proposal to the user. Call confirm_action only after the user has actively approved that exact proposal. Or create a new one if they want further alterations. Requires unlock_shareflo to have been called first.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cliffNoVesting cliff in months. Leave empty to accept the instrument default. With cliff_override=yes, use 0 for no cliff.
notesNoOptional notes for the award.
quantityYesNumber of shares or options to award; must be greater than zero.
tax_schemeNoTax scheme for this award. EMI and CSOP are Option-only; SEIS and EIS are Share-only. Omit to accept the instrument default.
date_acquiredYesAward date in YYYY-MM-DD format.
cliff_overrideNoInclude only when explicitly overriding the instrument's default cliff. With yes, cliff is required; use 0 for no cliff.
exercise_priceNoExercise price per option. Leave empty to accept the instrument default unless exercise_price_override is yes.
purchase_priceNoPrice paid for each unit. Leave empty to accept the instrument default unless purchase_price_override is yes.
vesting_periodNoVesting duration in months. Leave empty to accept the instrument default. With vesting_period_override=yes, use 0 for no vesting.
instrument_nameYesExact name of the instrument to award.
instrument_typeYesType of the named instrument.
stakeholder_nameYesStakeholder name in UPPER CASE; use FIRSTNAME LASTNAME for an individual.
exercise_currencyNoISO 4217 currency for exercise_price. Leave empty to accept the instrument default unless exercise_currency_override is yes.
purchase_currencyNoISO 4217 currency for purchase_price. Leave empty to accept the instrument default unless purchase_price_override is yes.
vesting_start_dateNoVesting start date in YYYY-MM-DD format. Required when the resolved vesting period is greater than zero; leave empty when it is zero.
replaces_proposal_uidNoOptional UID of an Open proposal being corrected. A successful new proposal supersedes it; it is not deleted.
exercise_price_overrideNoInclude only when explicitly overriding the instrument's default exercise price. With yes, exercise_price is required; use 0 only for a zero-price exercise.
purchase_price_overrideNoInclude only when explicitly overriding the instrument's default purchase price/currency. With yes, include purchase_price (use 0 for no purchase price) and purchase_currency when the price is greater than 0.
vesting_period_overrideNoInclude only when explicitly overriding the instrument's default vesting period. With yes, vesting_period is required; use 0 for no vesting.
quantity_vested_at_startNoUnits vested immediately at the vesting start. Omit for 0.
exercise_currency_overrideNoInclude only when explicitly overriding the instrument's default exercise currency. With yes, exercise_currency is required.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With only destructiveHint=false and a title in annotations, the description carries the burden well: it discloses that the output is a proposal (not a committed award), requires prior unlock_shareflo, and must be human-approved before confirm_action. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs to avoid prematurely finalizing an award.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place, with the workflow front-loaded (create proposal → present → confirm). No filler or redundancy.

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?

For a 21-param, no-output-schema, mutation-style tool, the description covers the dependency (unlock_shareflo), the human-in-the-loop requirement, and the correction path (replaces/new proposal). The 'present the returned proposal' line also implicitly covers how to use the return value.

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 of the 21 params is already documented in-schema, including the override pattern. The description only adds the meta-point that defaults are filled in automatically, which is a modest addition over the schema baseline.

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 action ('creates an award proposal') and frames it as the first step of allotting/awarding shares or options. This clearly distinguishes it from create_instrument, create_stakeholder, and confirm_action in the sibling set.

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?

Gives explicit sequencing: call only after unlock_shareflo, present the returned proposal to the user, call confirm_action only after active approval of that exact proposal, and create a new proposal if alterations are wanted. When-to-use and the flow relative to alternatives are fully specified.

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

All Shareflo 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