fynk MCP

Delete document signatory

delete-document-signatory

DestructiveIdempotent

Remove a signatory from a document.

Use this tool when:

A signatory was added in error or should no longer sign and the document has not yet been signed by them

Identify the signatory to remove by document_uuid plus signatory_email. Removal may fail if the document's stage no longer permits signatory changes.

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_email": "<signatory_email>"
    },
    "name": "delete-document-signatory"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`document_uuid`	Yes	UUID of the document to remove the signatory from. If you don't already have the document's UUID, use the list-documents tool to find it.
`signatory_email`	Yes	Email address of the signatory to remove

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`removed_signatory`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 20, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely new context beyond that: removal is conditional on the document's stage still permitting signatory changes, and on the signatory not having already signed. It does not say whether the removal is reversible or whether the signatory is notified.

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 core action is front-loaded in one sentence, followed by a scannable conditional bullet and the identification/precondition line. Every element is relevant, though the qualifying clause is slightly wordier than necessary.

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 and rich annotations, the description's job is behavioral context, which it supplies via preconditions and a failure mode. Coverage is good for a two-parameter mutation; only reversibility/notification and explicit sibling routing are missing.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, and both parameters are documented there, including the hint to use list-documents for the UUID. The description only restates that the signatory is identified by document_uuid plus signatory_email, adding no format or edge-case detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Remove a signatory from a document'), which clearly separates it from read/write siblings like create-document-signatory and update-document-signatory in intent. It stops short of naming the update sibling it is most easily confused with, so the differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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?

Provides an explicit 'Use this tool when' block with two concrete conditions: added in error, or no longer signing and not yet signed. It also states a precondition ('document has not yet been signed by them') and a failure mode. It does not, however, name update-document-signatory as the alternative when the goal is to change rather than remove a 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?