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.
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.