ClearPolicy

Get Document Tool

get-document-tool

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get details of a document, including how many people have signed it and how many haven't.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`document_id`	Yes	The ULID of the document.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`name`	Yes
`app_url`	Yes
`archived`	Yes
`edit_url`	No
`auto_renew`	No
`resource_uri`	Yes
`attestation_counts`	No
`current_version_id`	No
`requires_signature`	Yes
`renewal_interval_days`	No
`has_published_revision`	Yes
`default_attestation_type`	No
`current_version_published_at`	No
`latest_published_revision_pdf_uri`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedSep 26, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / requires_signature
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
```

changedOutput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "id",
-  "name",
-  "has_published_revision",
-  "archived",
-  "resource_uri",
-  "app_url"
-]New value: +[
+  "id",
+  "name",
+  "requires_signature",
+  "has_published_revision",
+  "archived",
+  "resource_uri",
+  "app_url"
+]

Changed1 schema field changedSep 10, 2026

changedOutput schema / properties / default_attestation_type / enum

Previous value: -[
-  "acknowledgment",
-  "signature"
-]New value: +[
+  "signature",
+  "acknowledgment"
+]

Changed4 schema fields changedJul 17, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / app_url
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```

addedOutput schema / properties / edit_url

Added value: +{
+  "type": [
+    "string",
+    "null"
+  ]
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / resource_uri
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```

changedOutput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "id",
-  "name",
-  "has_published_revision",
-  "archived"
-]New value: +[
+  "id",
+  "name",
+  "has_published_revision",
+  "archived",
+  "resource_uri",
+  "app_url"
+]

Changed1 schema field changedJul 2, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "archived": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "attestation_counts": {
+      "properties": {
+        "attested_latest": {
+          "type": "integer"
+        },
+        "attested_outdated": {
+          "type": "integer"
+        },
+        "pending_attested": {
+          "type": "integer"
+        },
+        "renewal_due": {
+          "type": "integer"
+        },
+        "total": {
+          "type": "integer"
+        },
+        "unrequested": {
+          "type": "integer"
+        }
+      },
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "auto_renew": {
+      "type": [
+        "boolean",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "current_version_id": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "current_version_published_at": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "default_attestation_type": {
+      "enum": [
+        "acknowledgment",
+        "signature"
+      ],
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "has_published_revision": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "id": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "latest_published_revision_pdf_uri": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "name": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "renewal_interval_days": {
+      "type": [
+        "integer",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "id",
+    "name",
+    "has_published_revision",
+    "archived"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedMar 29, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds useful return-value context by mentioning signature counts, but does not disclose other behavioral details such as access requirements or not-found behavior. This is adequate but not rich.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence that includes the core purpose and the most distinguishing detail. There is no redundancy or filler.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With one well-documented parameter, a full output schema, and strong safety annotations, the description is nearly complete for a simple read-only fetch. The main gap is the lack of explicit sibling differentiation, but the low complexity keeps this above the minimum viable bar.

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%, so document_id is already documented as a required ULID. The description does not add additional meaning or constraints beyond the schema, making the baseline score of 3 appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('details of a document'), and adds concrete information about what details are included: signed and unsigned counts. It is clear enough to distinguish from list-documents and get-document-revision, though it does not explicitly name the sibling it is not.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list-documents-tool, get-document-revision-tool, query-docs, or search-docs. No explicit when/when-not conditions or alternative routing are provided.

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

All ClearPolicy 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?