cap_table.simulate_raiseModel an unsaved SAFE, note, or priced round. Supply whole USD and discount fractions (0.20 means 20%). Calculations are planning estimates, not executed financing or legal advice.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| scenario | Yes | ||
| project_id | Yes | ||
| cap_table_id | 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?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior; the description adds that the round is unsaved, results are planning estimates, and outputs are not executed financing or legal advice. This is meaningful context beyond the annotations and does not contradict them.
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?
Two sentences carry the full message: the first states the core purpose and the second adds units and caveats. There is no filler and the most important information is front-loaded.
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 input schema, output schema, and annotations already cover structural and safety details, so the description only needs to add semantic context. It provides the key facts about unsaved status, units, and non-authoritative output, though it could be slightly more explicit about round-type-specific parameter requirements.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining 'whole USD' for monetary amounts and 'discount fractions (0.20 means 20%)' for discount_rate, while the first sentence maps to round_type. It does not clarify dependencies such as when pre_money_valuation is required, so it is good but not fully complete.
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 uses a specific verb ('Model') and names the resource ('an unsaved SAFE, note, or priced round'), making the simulation purpose clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as cap_table.dilution_preview, so it stops short of maximum sibling differentiation.
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 clearly frames this as a planning tool for unsaved instruments and states that calculations are 'not executed financing or legal advice', which gives strong usage context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it is a 4 rather than a 5.
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.