cap_table.createCreate a private planning cap table within the selected project's plan limits. This does not establish an official ledger or issue securities.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | ||
| project_id | Yes | ||
| idempotency_key | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already indicate this is a mutating, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those annotations: the result is a private planning draft, it respects plan limits, and it has no official ledger or securities-issuance effect.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is only two sentences, front-loads the core purpose, and every sentence adds value. The negative clarification about not creating an official ledger or issuing securities is concise and important.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description adequately captures the tool's core purpose and limitations, and the output schema plus annotations cover some invocation details. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling cap_table operations and does not explain the meaning or requirement of idempotency_key or plan-limit failure behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameter meaning, but it does not mention project_id, data, or idempotency_key. The only hint is 'selected project's plan limits,' which vaguely relates to project_id but does not compensate for the lack of parameter-level guidance.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Create a private planning cap table.' It also clarifies the distinct nature of the operation by explicitly saying it 'does not establish an official ledger or issue securities,' which differentiates it from related cap table or legal/ledger tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the use case by emphasizing 'private planning' and 'within the selected project's plan limits,' and it excludes official ledger creation. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives such as cap_table.create_stakeholder or explain when to choose those siblings instead.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Domain prefixes (crm., cap_table., landing.) clearly separate broad modules, and most tools target a specific resource and action. However, within modules there are boundary overlaps—crm.add_contact_note vs crm.log_activity and cap_table.dilution_preview vs cap_table.simulate_raise—where descriptions must be read carefully to avoid a wrong pick.
The dominant pattern is module.verb_noun (e.g., crm.create_lead, cap_table.update_stakeholder), which is clear and readable. But a subset of top-level tools uses object_verb with flat underscores (e.g., shortlink_create, qr_generate, campaign_archive) and one outlier (campaign_stats) breaks the verb pattern, so conventions are mixed.
86 tools is an extreme surface for any single MCP server, well past the 50+ threshold that makes coherent selection impractical. Even though the features span several business domains, this would be far more usable split into focused servers per module.
The covered domains are broadly complete: cap table, CRM, incorporation, landing, projects, sparkroom, tasks, and validation all have read/write workflows with few dead ends. Minor gaps remain (no campaign listing/update, no branding palette delete/update, no contact deletion) but none of them blocks the main product workflows.