Tulina

signwell_bulk_send

SignWell bulk sends — one document per CSV row, built from templates.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "signwell_bulk_send"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`op`	No	which action. · "list" — bulk sends (`page`, `limit`, `user_email`, `api_application_id`). · "get" — one bulk send (`bulk_send_id`). · "documents" — the documents a bulk send produced, as compact views (`full=True` for raw). · "csv_template" — the CSV header to fill for `template_ids`. · "validate_csv" — have SignWell check a filled CSV, sends nothing. · "create" — ⚠️ emails one person per row. PREVIEW BY DEFAULT: it validates the CSV and returns what would go out; pass `dry_run=False` to actually send.	list
`csv`	No	the filled CSV as plain text (or `csv_base64`, already encoded).
`_org`	No	Org (id) de CET APPEL. `oto_list_orgs()`.
`full`	No	op="documents" only — raw SignWell documents instead of compact views.
`name`	No
`page`	No
`limit`	No
`_group`	No	Équipe (id) de CET APPEL, sous son org parente.
`_run_id`	No	OBLIGATOIRE à chaque appel dès `run_start` ou `data_claim_next` : sans lui, l'écriture sur une ligne réservée est refusée. Hérité seulement si le serveur tient un run actif — n'y compte pas.
`dry_run`	No	op="create" only; defaults to True there.
`message`	No
`subject`	No
`_project`	No	Projet (id) de CET APPEL — jeton PRIMAIRE. `oto_project(op='list')`.
`_instance`	No	Instance de connecteur PRÉCISE (un credential exact). `oto_instance(op='list')`.
`csv_base64`	No
`user_email`	No
`bulk_send_id`	No
`template_ids`	No
`skip_row_errors`	No
`api_application_id`	No
`apply_signing_order`	No
`custom_requester_name`	No
`custom_requester_email`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

No schema history has been recorded yet.

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and largely drops it. The critical trait — that op='create' emails one person per row, is preview/dry-run by default, and requires dry_run=False to actually send — appears only in the schema's op description, not here. Nothing is said about permissions, irreversibility, rate limits, or what a run returns.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The single sentence is front-loaded and free of padding, so it is genuinely concise. However, for a 23-parameter, six-operation tool this brevity reads as under-specification rather than economy. The em-dash clause adds the one useful detail (templates drive each row) but the structure leaves no room for the safety-critical information an agent needs.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Against a tool that can send real emails to many recipients, with no annotations, no output schema, and 23 parameters, this one-line description is far from complete. The schema's op enum rescues some of the missing guidance, which prevents a 1, but the description itself contributes no risk framing, no operation routing, and no parameter coverage.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 23 parameters and only 39% schema description coverage, the description is expected to compensate, and it barely does: 'one document per CSV row, built from templates' loosely gestures at csv/csv_base64 and template_ids. The other ~20 parameters (bulk_send_id, skip_row_errors, apply_signing_order, subject, message, paging fields, context ids) get no mention at all.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific resource and mechanism: bulk sends, one document per CSV row, built from templates. That distinguishes it from siblings like signwell_document and signwell_template, which handle single documents and templates respectively. It does not reveal that the tool is a multi-operation dispatcher (list/get/documents/csv_template/validate_csv/create), so the purpose is clear but incomplete.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description contains no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and never points to alternatives such as signwell_document for single sends. The only routing help lives in the op enum description inside the schema (e.g. validate_csv 'sends nothing'), which is structured-field content rather than description content. An agent reading only the description would not know which of the six operations to pick.

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

All Tulina 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.

Resources

Need Help?