fynk MCP

Create document signatory

create-document-signatory

Destructive

Adds a signatory to a document.

Use this tool when:

You have a document with one or more parties configured and want to add a signatory for one of the parties.

The signatory becomes a user of the document and is invited by email to sign it once the document moves to the signing stage, so confirm the email address with the user rather than inferring it.

When adding a signatory whose email corresponds to an existing user in the current fynk account, all of the optional arguments will be ignored and the signatory information will be populated from the existing user's profile.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "document_uuid": "<document_uuid>",
      "signatory_party_identifier": "<signatory_party_identifier>",
      "signatory_email": "<signatory_email>"
    },
    "name": "create-document-signatory"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`document_uuid`	Yes	UUID of the document to add the signatory to. If you don't already have the document's UUID, use the list-documents tool to find it.
`signatory_email`	Yes	Signatory's email address
`signatory_title`	No	Optional job title
`signatory_last_name`	No	Signatory's last name
`signatory_first_name`	No	Signatory's first name
`signatory_mobile_phone`	No	Mobile phone number in E.164 format. Depending on the document's signature_type, may be required before signing can be started
`signatory_party_identifier`	Yes	The ref_uuid, reference, or entity_name of the party in the document to add the signatory to

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No	Name of the signatory
`uuid`	No	Do not show to the user unless they ask for it
`email`	No	Email of the signatory
`party_uuid`	No	UUID of the party this signatory belongs to. Absent if the signatory has not been assigned to a party yet, which prevents signing from being started. Do not show to the user unless they ask for it
`_entity_type`	No	Only relevant for tooling. Do not show to the user
`internal_user`	No	true if the signatory has a fynk user in this account
`signing_order`	No	The order in which this signatory signs

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 20, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds useful context beyond those annotations: the signatory becomes a document user, is invited by email at the signing stage, and existing-account-user emails cause optional arguments to be ignored.

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 front-loaded with the core action and uses a short bullet for the use condition. Every sentence adds practical information about prerequisites, email confirmation, or existing-user behavior.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the 7-parameter mutation tool, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the essential context an agent needs: required document/party setup, email confirmation, and the existing-user override. Return-value details can be left to the output schema.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful parameter behavior by warning that the email should be confirmed rather than inferred and that optional signatory arguments are ignored when the email matches an existing user.

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 states a specific verb and resource: adding a signatory to a document. It also clarifies the prerequisite that the document must already have parties configured, which distinguishes it from create-document-party and delete/update-document-signatory.

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?

The description gives a clear 'Use this tool when' condition involving documents with configured parties. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as update-document-signatory or say when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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

All fynk MCP tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?