Obra CFO
Server Configuration
Describes the environment variables required to run the server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Instructions
Guidance the server publishes about itself, which clients place ahead of the tool catalog so the model reads it before choosing anything.
This server publishes no instructions, or was last inspected before Glama recorded them.
Capabilities
Features and capabilities supported by this server
Protocol revision2025-11-25
| Capability | Details |
|---|---|
| tools | {
"listChanged": true
} |
Tools
Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| deck_blueprintA | Return the framework for a fundable pitch deck at your stage: the slide structure with an evidence bar for each, the research to run first (as paste-in prompts for your Claude), and the artifacts to produce before the deck exists (business plan, pricing, go-to-market). Use this when you have no deck yet or a weak one. It reads your Obra CTO report if present. Then build the deck and ask the CFO to rank it. |
| prepare_assessmentA | Read the founder's funding materials (deck, plan, financials, one-pager) from a local path and return their contents with a rigorous assessment rubric. YOU, the host model, then assess them (separate facts from assumptions, extract the thesis, rate each dimension with evidence and confidence, find the weakest assumption, run the six-persona committee) and call score_funding_readiness with the structured result. Reads the Obra CTO report if present so technical claims rest on verified evidence. Materials stay local. |
| score_funding_readinessB | Turn your structured assessment (from prepare_assessment) into a stage-calibrated funding-readiness dashboard: investment score, confidence, risk register, the facts/assumptions/opinions ledger, your weakest assumption, what must be true, the unknowns, and the investment committee. Reads the Obra CTO report for technical risk. |
Prompts
Interactive templates invoked by user choice
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No prompts | |
Resources
Contextual data attached and managed by the client
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No resources | |
TDQS
Scored across 3 tools
Each tool has a distinct and clear purpose: deck_blueprint for creating a slide structure, prepare_assessment for reading materials and generating an assessment rubric, and score_funding_readiness for producing a readiness dashboard. There is no overlap or ambiguity among them.
The naming uses snake_case but mixes patterns: deck_blueprint is noun_noun, while prepare_assessment and score_funding_readiness are verb_noun. This inconsistency makes the set slightly less predictable, though still readable.
Three tools is a small but appropriate number for a focused funding readiness server. They cover a sequential workflow (blueprint → prepare → score). It is slightly minimal but not under-scoped for the stated purpose.
The tools cover the assessment and scoring stages but lack a tool for actual deck building or iteration (the blueprint tool instructs the agent to build the deck externally). There are notable gaps in the lifecycle, such as updating materials or handling follow-up actions.