Skip to main content
Glama

ClearPolicy

by app.clearpolicy.api
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

List Signing Requests Tool

list-signing-requests-tool
Read-onlyIdempotent

Check who has signed a document and who hasn't. Filter by document, person, or status (pending, signed, expired, etc.) to track compliance.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
statusNoFilter by status: created, sent, viewed, attested, expired, or canceled.
person_idNoFilter by person ULID.
document_idNoFilter by document ULID.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
requestsYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / properties / requests / items / properties / attestation_type / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "acknowledgment",
-  "signature"
-]New value: +[
+  "signature",
+  "acknowledgment"
+]
  2. Changed4 schema fields changed
    • addedOutput schema / properties / requests / items / properties / document / properties / app_url
      Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedOutput schema / properties / requests / items / properties / document / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "id",
-  "name",
-  "resource_uri"
-]New value: +[
+  "id",
+  "name",
+  "resource_uri",
+  "app_url"
+]
    • addedOutput schema / properties / requests / items / properties / person / properties / app_url
      Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedOutput schema / properties / requests / items / properties / person / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "id",
-  "name",
-  "email",
-  "resource_uri"
-]New value: +[
+  "id",
+  "name",
+  "email",
+  "resource_uri",
+  "app_url"
+]
  3. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / status / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "created",
-  "sent",
-  "viewed",
-  "attested",
-  "expired",
-  "canceled",
-  "bounced",
-  "failed",
-  "complained"
-]New value: +[
+  "created",
+  "sent",
+  "viewed",
+  "attested",
+  "expired",
+  "canceled",
+  "bounced",
+  "failed",
+  "complained",
+  "suppressed"
+]
    • changedOutput schema / properties / requests / items / properties / status / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "created",
-  "sent",
-  "viewed",
-  "attested",
-  "expired",
-  "canceled",
-  "bounced",
-  "failed",
-  "complained"
-]New value: +[
+  "created",
+  "sent",
+  "viewed",
+  "attested",
+  "expired",
+  "canceled",
+  "bounced",
+  "failed",
+  "complained",
+  "suppressed"
+]
  4. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "requests": {
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "attestation_type": {
+            "enum": [
+              "acknowledgment",
+              "signature"
+            ],
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "attested_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"
+            ]
+          },
+          "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"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "requests"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  5. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / status / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "created",
-  "sent",
-  "viewed",
-  "attested",
-  "expired",
-  "canceled"
-]New value: +[
+  "created",
+  "sent",
+  "viewed",
+  "attested",
+  "expired",
+  "canceled",
+  "bounced",
+  "failed",
+  "complained"
+]
  6. First observed

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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 description's role is to add behavioral context. It fails by listing statuses 'pending' and 'signed' that do not exist in the schema enum (which includes created, sent, viewed, attested, expired, canceled, bounced, failed, complained, suppressed). This misleads the agent about valid filter values, compromising behavioral transparency.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that captures the core action and filtering options. It is concise and to the point. However, the inaccuracy in the status examples ('pending, signed') slightly detracts from clarity, though the structure itself is sound.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The tool has an output schema (as indicated), so return values are not the description's responsibility. The description adequately covers what it does and its filters, but the status terminology mismatch and the absence of any note about all parameters being optional (though in schema) leave a minor completeness gap. It is sufficient for a simple read-only list operation but not fully precise.

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 coverage is 100%, so each parameter already has a description. The tool description restates the filtering dimensions (document, person, status) but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. It does not clarify the enum mismatch, so it provides no additional semantic value. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description states a clear purpose: checking who has signed a document and who hasn't, with filters for document, person, or status. This is a specific verb-resource combination ('list signing requests') that distinguishes it from the singular 'get-signing-request-tool' and other signing-related tools. The phrase 'track compliance' adds context without ambiguity.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies when to use it (for compliance tracking and filtering) but does not explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name alternatives like get-signing-request-tool for details, send-signing-request-tool for creation, or cancel-signing-request-tool. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit, leaving the agent to infer the boundaries.

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

All ClearPolicy toolsInspect
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