verify_document_hashFind FreeSign receipts matching a local document SHA-256 hash.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| document_sha256 | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| matches | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description fully shoulders behavioral disclosure. It fails to indicate read-only nature, idempotency, or behavior on no match (e.g., empty result vs. error).
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?
Extremely concise single sentence with no superfluous words, but brevity sacrifices detail needed for completeness.
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?
Despite low complexity (1 param, output schema exists), the description omits output structure or behavior, leaving the agent without sufficient context for correct invocation.
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 0%, and the description only broadly mentions the parameter ('local document SHA-256 hash') without adding constraints, format, or usage context beyond the schema's pattern.
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 uses a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('FreeSign receipts') with a clear input ('local document SHA-256 hash'), distinct from sibling tools which handle creation or retrieval of proofs and receipts.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs. siblings (e.g., get_receipt, verify_audit_chain) or prerequisites; the description only states its basic function.
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.