FreeSign — Free e-signature

Verify audit chain

verify_audit_chain

Return an envelope's append-only audit-event hash chain together with a server-computed integrity verdict: every event_hash is recomputed from its canonical material, and the prev_event_hash linkage and per-envelope seq contiguity are checked. Evidence only, never PDF bytes. The raw events are included verbatim so the caller can independently re-derive the verdict instead of trusting chain.valid.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`envelope_id`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`chain`	Yes
`events`	Yes
`envelope_id`	Yes
`attested_audit_chain_head_hash`	Yes	The audit-chain head derived from the signer-signed v2 final payload (G-01), fed into the verdict's head cross-check. NULL until the envelope is finalized.
`attested_head_signature_verified`	Yes	True when the final-payload signature carrying the attested head was re-verified against the signer's on-file public key. False when not finalized or the signature did not verify.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it returns evidence only (no PDF bytes), recomputes hash chains, checks linkage and contiguity, and includes raw events for independent verification. The server-computed verdict is mentioned, and trust implications are hinted. Could add side effects or authentication needs.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is relatively concise with two sentences, but the second sentence is long and packs multiple details. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. Slight improvement could be made by breaking into bullet points or shorter sentences, but overall efficient.

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 presence of an output schema and the tool's complexity, the description covers the key aspects: what is returned (hash chain, verdict, raw events), the verification process, and the read-only nature. Missing details about error conditions or performance impact, but sufficient for typical use.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description does not explain the 'envelope_id' parameter beyond what the schema provides (e.g., pattern). It does not mention where to obtain the ID or format requirements beyond the regex. The parameter is simple but the description adds no semantic value.

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 identifies the tool as returning an envelope's audit-event hash chain with a server-computed integrity verdict. It uses specific verbs ('Return') and resources ('append-only audit-event hash chain'), and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on audit chain verification, which is unique among the listed siblings.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage for verifying audit chain integrity but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'verify_document_hash' or 'get_ots_proof'. No exclusions or alternative guidance are provided.

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

All FreeSign — Free e-signature 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

A3.9/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct function: envelope creation, OTS proof retrieval, receipt retrieval, audit chain verification, and document hash lookup. No overlap in purposes.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (create_signing_envelope, get_ots_proof, etc.) with imperative verbs and clear noun phrases.

Tool Count5/5

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.

Completeness4/5

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.

Resources

Need Help?