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.

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.

Input Schema

TableJSON 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

TableJSON 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

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful, non-obvious behavior: when the email matches an existing account user, optional arguments are ignored and the profile populates the signatory data.

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?

Front-loads the verb+resource in the first sentence, then usage and the caveat. A single-bullet list is mildly awkward but every sentence carries information; nothing is wasted.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and all 7 parameters are documented. The description covers the usage context and the key behavioral caveat, leaving little an agent needs that is missing.

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 meaning beyond the schema by explaining why the optional fields may be silently ignored (email matching an existing user), which helps an agent understand argument precedence.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Adds a signatory to a document.' This clearly distinguishes it from the delete/update signatory siblings in intent, though it does not explicitly name the alternatives to route against.

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 'Use this tool when' block gives a concrete precondition: a document with one or more parties configured, adding a signatory for one of the parties. Clear context, but no explicit when-not or pointer to update-document-signatory.

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?