SignSimple

send_for_signature

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).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`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)

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that recipients receive secure signing links, fields are placed automatically unless custom fields are given, and an API key is required. It also notes the free/unlimited nature, which is useful context beyond basic functionality.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states purpose, followed by procedural details, template integration, and the API key requirement. Every sentence contributes new information with no filler, making it efficient and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers key prerequisites (API key), parameter usage (document_url vs document_base64), and integration with list_templates. It lacks information about return values or error handling, but these are not typically required when output schema is absent and the action is primarily a send operation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds value by explaining the relationship between document_url and document_base64 as alternatives, and explicitly mentions passing template PDF URLs as document_url. It also clarifies that recipients are the signing parties, enriching the schema's minimal descriptions.

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 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) by defining its send action, leaving no ambiguity about its role.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It provides clear context for when to use the tool, such as requiring a SignSimple API key and referencing list_templates as a source for PDF URLs. While it doesn't explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, the context is sufficient for an agent to infer proper usage alongside sibling tools.

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

All SignSimple tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct action: listing documents, checking a single document's status, listing templates, and sending for signature. There is no overlap or ambiguity.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern: get_document_status, list_documents, list_templates, send_for_signature. The conventions are uniform.

Tool Count5/5

Four tools is a well-scoped set for a focused e-signature service, covering the core workflow without unnecessary bulk. This fits the typical 3-15 tool range.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers the essential lifecycle: send, check status, list documents, and generate from templates. Minor gaps exist, such as no cancel/void or reminder actions, but they are not critical for the basic use case.

Resources

Need Help?