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, so description carries full burden. It discloses that tool returns evidence only (no PDF bytes) and lists specific return fields. Does not mention permissions, idempotency, or side effects, but for a read-only tool with no destructive hint needed, this is acceptable.
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?
Two sentences with no redundancy. Front-loaded with core output and key constraint (evidence only). Every sentence provides value.
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 one parameter, simple schema, and presence of output schema (implied), the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and output. Could mention that it's a read-only operation or idempotent, but not essential.
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 has 0% description coverage and only one parameter (envelope_id). Description does not explain what envelope_id is, how to obtain it, or its format. Fails to add meaning beyond the schema's 'string' type.
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?
Clearly states it returns envelope record with specific fields (final_pdf_sha256, etc.), per-signer receipts, and OTS metadata. Distinguishes itself from siblings like get_ots_proof and verify tools by specifying 'evidence only, never PDF bytes'.
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?
Description implies use for retrieving evidence data but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like get_ots_proof or verify_document_hash. No 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 function: envelope creation, OTS proof retrieval, receipt retrieval, audit chain verification, and document hash lookup. No overlap in purposes.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (create_signing_envelope, get_ots_proof, etc.) with imperative verbs and clear noun phrases.
With 5 tools, the server is well-scoped for a free e-signature service focusing on creation and verification, covering the core workflow without unnecessary extras.
The tool set covers the primary use cases: creating envelopes and retrieving/verifying evidence. Minor gaps like envelope listing or status checks are absent, but not critical for the stated purpose.