get_receiptReturn the envelope record (including final_pdf_sha256, final_signature_base64url, final_payload_json), per-signer signing receipts, and OpenTimestamps anchor metadata. Evidence only, never PDF bytes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| envelope_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| envelope | Yes | ||
| receipts | Yes | ||
| ots_anchors | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, but the description transparently states the tool returns specific structured data and clarifies it is evidence-only. It does not disclose side effects (which are likely none as a read operation), so behavior is well communicated.
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 concise at two sentences, but the first sentence lists multiple fields which could be restructured for readability. It front-loads the purpose well.
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 simple tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the overall purpose, return content, and constraints. It is complete for a get-type tool, but lacks parameter details.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description does not describe the single parameter 'envelope_id'. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description should add meaning beyond the name, such as format constraints or how to obtain it.
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 it returns 'envelope record (including specific fields)', 'per-signer signing receipts', and 'OpenTimestamps anchor metadata', and explicitly says 'Evidence only, never PDF bytes'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like verify_audit_chain or get_ots_proof.
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 usage for evidence retrieval via 'Evidence only, never PDF bytes', but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_ots_proof. No mention of prerequisites or when not to use.
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 has a clearly distinct purpose: creation of an envelope, retrieval of OTS proof, retrieval of full receipt, verification of audit chain integrity, and lookup by document hash. No overlap.
All tool names follow a consistent 'verb_object' pattern with underscores (e.g., create_signing_envelope, get_ots_proof, verify_audit_chain). Verbs are clear and objects specific.
With 5 tools, the server is well-scoped for its domain—envelope creation, evidence retrieval, and verification. No unnecessary tools and sufficient coverage for core operations.
The tool surface covers creation, evidence retrieval, and verification of audit chains and document hashes. A minor gap is the absence of a direct signature verification tool, but this is partially addressed by get_receipt providing signature data.