get-signing-request-toolCheck whether a specific person has signed a document, and when.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| request_id | Yes | The ULID of the signing request. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| person | No | ||
| status | Yes | ||
| sent_at | No | ||
| document | No | ||
| viewed_at | No | ||
| expired_at | No | ||
| expires_at | No | ||
| attested_at | No | ||
| canceled_at | No | ||
| resource_uri | Yes | ||
| attestation_type | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / properties / attestation_type / enumPrevious value: -[
- "acknowledgment",
- "signature"
-]New value: +[
+ "signature",
+ "acknowledgment"
+]Output schema / properties / document / properties / app_urlAdded value: +{
+ "type": "string"
+}Output schema / properties / document / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "id",
- "name",
- "resource_uri"
-]New value: +[
+ "id",
+ "name",
+ "resource_uri",
+ "app_url"
+]Output schema / properties / person / properties / app_urlAdded value: +{
+ "type": "string"
+}Output schema / properties / person / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "id",
- "name",
- "email",
- "resource_uri"
-]New value: +[
+ "id",
+ "name",
+ "email",
+ "resource_uri",
+ "app_url"
+]Output schema / properties / status / enumPrevious value: -[
- "created",
- "sent",
- "viewed",
- "attested",
- "expired",
- "canceled",
- "bounced",
- "failed",
- "complained"
-]New value: +[
+ "created",
+ "sent",
+ "viewed",
+ "attested",
+ "expired",
+ "canceled",
+ "bounced",
+ "failed",
+ "complained",
+ "suppressed"
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "attestation_type": {
+ "enum": [
+ "acknowledgment",
+ "signature"
+ ],
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "attested_at": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "canceled_at": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "document": {
+ "properties": {
+ "id": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "name": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "resource_uri": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "id",
+ "name",
+ "resource_uri"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "expired_at": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "expires_at": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "id": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "person": {
+ "properties": {
+ "email": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "id": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "name": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "resource_uri": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "id",
+ "name",
+ "email",
+ "resource_uri"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "resource_uri": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "sent_at": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "status": {
+ "enum": [
+ "created",
+ "sent",
+ "viewed",
+ "attested",
+ "expired",
+ "canceled",
+ "bounced",
+ "failed",
+ "complained"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "viewed_at": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "id",
+ "status",
+ "resource_uri"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the tool returns whether a signature occurred and when, but it does not disclose additional behavioral details such as handling of missing request IDs or response shape. This is adequate given the strong annotation coverage.
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 a single, focused sentence with no filler. It immediately states what the tool does, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.
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?
With only one parameter, clear annotations, and an output schema present, the description is complete for this simple read-only tool. The description need not explain return values because the output schema covers that, and no other context is missing.
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?
The schema provides 100% description coverage for the single parameter (request_id as 'The ULID of the signing request'). The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 clearly states a specific verb ('Check') and a precise resource: whether a specific person has signed a document and when. This distinguishes it from siblings like list-signing-requests-tool or send-signing-request-tool by focusing on the signing status of a person rather than listing or sending requests.
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 a clear usage context: use this tool when you need to verify a person's signature status and timestamp. It does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, but the intended use case is evident from the phrasing, matching 'clear context, no exclusions'.
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.