Send PDFs for legally binding electronic signature, free and unlimited. Tools to send documents with emailed signing links, track per-recipient signing status, and use free legal templates (NDA, lease, contractor agreement, and more) sendable by URL.
Check the status of a document previously sent for signature: overall state (sent/completed/declined/expired/voided), per-recipient progress (pending/viewed/signed), and the signed PDF download URL once complete. Requires a SignSimple API key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| envelope_id | Yes | The envelopeId returned by send_for_signature |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden and covers the read-only nature ('Check'), returns detailed output (states, progress, URL), and notes the API key requirement. It doesn't mention error behavior or rate limits, but that's acceptable for a simple status tool.
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?
A single, information-dense sentence that includes purpose, output details, and auth requirement with zero redundancy or filler.
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?
For a one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently describes all returned data (state, progress, URL) and the required auth, making it complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% and the schema already describes envelope_id as returned by send_for_signature. The description reinforces this by referencing 'previously sent' but does not add meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 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?
Description clearly specifies the tool checks document status and enumerates the exact states (sent/completed/declined/expired/voided) and per-recipient progress (pending/viewed/signed), distinguishing it from sibling tools that list or send documents.
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?
States 'previously sent for signature', clearly implying use after send_for_signature, and lists distinct return data. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List the 25 most recent documents sent from the connected SignSimple account, with status and signed-PDF URLs where complete. Requires a SignSimple API key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the 25-document limit, the included fields (status, signed-PDF URLs), and the authentication requirement (API key). It implicitly signals a read-only operation via 'List' and does not describe destructive side effects, which is appropriate for this simple tool.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, and every word adds value. 'Requires a SignSimple API key' is a necessary operational note with no fluff.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is complete. It specifies the count (25), the source (connected SignSimple account), the data returned (status, signed-PDF URLs), and the prerequisite (API key). No significant gaps remain.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the description need not explain parameter details. The schema coverage is 100% (vacuously), and the description adds context about the default return set (25 most recent), which is valuable beyond the empty schema.
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 the verb 'List' and the resource 'documents' with specific scope: the 25 most recent sent from the connected SignSimple account, including status and signed-PDF URLs. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_templates (templates) and get_document_status (single document status).
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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: to list recent documents. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it (e.g., for single-document status, use get_document_status). This is a minor gap, hence 4 rather than 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List SignSimple's free, professionally drafted document templates (NDA, lease, contractor agreement, liability waiver, bill of sale, promissory note). Returns each template's info page and direct PDF URL — pass the PDF URL to send_for_signature as document_url to send one. No API key needed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns each template's info page and direct PDF URL, and that no API key is required. This is sufficient for a zero-parameter read-only listing tool, though it does not mention rate limits or pagination.
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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every clause adds value. It efficiently communicates the tool's function, output format, and integration point.
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 no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description still provides a complete picture: what it lists, what it returns, how to use the result, and authentication requirements. There are no major gaps for a simple list tool.
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?
There are no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds useful context about the output and how to use it, which compensates for the lack of parameter details.
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 ('List') and clearly identifies the resource ('SignSimple's free, professionally drafted document templates') with concrete examples. It is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like list_documents, as it focuses on templates rather than sent documents.
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 provides clear context by stating that the returned PDF URL should be passed to send_for_signature, showing how this tool fits into a workflow. It also notes that no API key is needed. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or compare it directly with alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Send a PDF document for legally binding electronic signature via SignSimple (free, unlimited). Provide the PDF as a fetchable URL or base64, plus recipient name(s) and email(s). Each recipient is emailed a secure signing link; signature and date fields are placed automatically unless custom fields are given. Works with the free templates from list_templates (pass their pdf URL as document_url). Requires a SignSimple API key (create one at https://signsimple.app/profile).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| message | No | Message included in the signing email (optional) | |
| subject | No | Email subject line (optional) | |
| recipients | Yes | People who must sign, in order | |
| document_url | No | Publicly fetchable URL of the PDF to send | |
| document_name | Yes | Display name for the document, e.g. "Consulting Agreement.pdf" | |
| document_base64 | No | Base64-encoded PDF (alternative to document_url) | |
| expires_in_days | No | Days until the signing links expire (optional, default 30) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that recipients are emailed a secure signing link, fields are placed automatically, and an API key is required. It could mention response format or error handling, but the key side effects are transparent.
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 four sentences, each earning its place: purpose, input requirements, behavioral outcome, and prerequisites/template integration. No redundant or vague filler.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (7 params, no annotations, no output schema), the description covers the main operation, input methods, recipient handling, template integration, and API key requirement. It doesn't explicitly state the return value, which is a minor gap, but overall it's complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining that document_url and document_base64 are alternatives, and that templates from list_templates can be passed via document_url. It also clarifies recipient behavior. This exceeds the schema's basic descriptions.
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 the tool sends a PDF for legally binding electronic signature via SignSimple, with a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from sibling tools (get_document_status, list_documents, list_templates) which handle status, listing, and templates rather than sending.
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 provides clear context for when to use the tool—when sending a document for signature—and includes a prerequisite (API key) and a cross-reference to list_templates for templates. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, but the sibling differentiation is clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
get_document_statuslist_documentslist_templatessend_for_signatureClaiming proves that you control a remote MCP connector. It does not move, proxy, or interrupt the server.
Open the connector listing, choose Claim ownership, and sign in to Glama.
Complete one verification method:
GitHub identity — fastest for official registry listings. For a namespace such as io.github.alice/server, link the matching GitHub user, then choose Claim with GitHub. An organization namespace such as io.github.acme/server also needs that organization to have installed the Glama AI GitHub App and approved its permissions, because GitHub discloses organization membership only to apps it has installed. Use HTTP or DNS when it has not.
HTTP challenge — works when you can deploy a public file. Generate a token, publish the exact JSON Glama shows at /.well-known/glama.json on the same origin as the connector, then choose Check HTTP challenge.
DNS challenge — works when you control DNS but cannot change the server. Generate a token, create the exact TXT record Glama shows, wait for it to propagate, then choose Check DNS challenge.
After verification, Glama sends a confirmation email and gives you access to listing details, thumbnails, health checks, and analytics. Keep the HTTP file or DNS record in place: Glama periodically checks it and ownership remains verified while the token is discoverable.
The HTTP ownership file has this structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"claim": "glama_claim_..."
}Claim tokens are opaque, stable, and bound to the signed-in Glama account. They contain no email address or other personal information. If Glama can no longer discover a verified HTTP or DNS token, it starts a seven-day grace period before removing claim-based access. Restore the same token during that period to keep ownership verified. Never publish an email address, Glama session token, GitHub token, or connector credential as ownership proof.
If verification fails, confirm that you copied the current token exactly. The HTTP file must be public, return valid JSON with a successful HTTP response, and stay on the connector's origin. DNS changes may need more time to propagate. A claim cannot transfer to a different origin or hostname: if the connector target changes, Glama starts the grace period and the new target must be claimed separately after the previous claim is released.
For a connector linked to the official MCP Registry, registry updates continue to replace its name, description, and URL by default. After claiming, open Manage connector and enable Use Glama listing details as the source of truth if edits made on Glama should be preserved. Categories and thumbnails are always managed on Glama; registry linkage and technical connection settings continue to sync.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
To improve your MCP server's ranking:
Claim ownership of the server listing
Complete the server profile with an accurate description and thumbnail
Provide a test profile so Glama can connect to and evaluate the server
Keep tool definitions clear and complete to earn a high Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
Route real usage through the Glama Gateway; more recorded successful server uses also improve the ranking
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct action: listing documents, checking a specific document's status, listing templates, and sending documents for signature. There is no overlap in purpose.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern: get_document_status, list_documents, list_templates, send_for_signature. This creates a predictable and easy-to-navigate API.
With only 4 tools, the server is tightly scoped to the core e-signature workflow: sending, listing, and checking status. Each tool is essential and the count is appropriate for the purpose.
The core lifecycle is covered: send_for_signature (create), list_documents (read list), get_document_status (read detail), and list_templates (supporting resource). Missing operations like voiding or resending are minor for a simple free service, and agents can work around them.