Skip to main content
Glama

Move document to done stage

move-document-to-done-stage
Destructive

Moves a document to the done stage.

Use this tool when:

  • The document's current stage is one of: draft, approved_draft, review, approved_review

  • The document will NOT be signed through fynk (documents signed through fynk automatically move to done when fully signed)

This stage transition may be blocked by checkpoints on the document, or by unresolved preconditions (unresolved proposals, mandatory dynamic fields without values, active editor sessions or working copies, active signing phases, etc.). A refusal here reports just the first problem it runs into; call get-document-info first and read workflow_state.stage_transitions.done.blockers to see everything that is in the way at once.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
document_uuidYesUUID of the document to move to the done stage. If you don't already have the document's UUID, use the list-documents tool to find it.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlNoURL to open the document in fynk
nameNoName of the document
uuidNoUnique identifier for the document. Do not show to the user unless they ask for it
stageNoWhat stage the document is in currently
_entity_typeNoOnly relevant for tooling. Do not show to the user
document_typeNoIf present, indicates what kind of document this is. Absent when the document has no type assigned
workflow_stateNoGives an indication of which stage transitions, etc are possible to perform on this document. This object is technical state, not display content: when relaying it to the user, always render it as natural-language prose and never echo raw field names or snake_case values (e.g. say 'signing cannot be started yet because not every signature block has been assigned to a signatory' instead of mentioning 'can_start_signing' or 'signature_block_signatory').

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description goes well beyond that by naming the classes of blockers (checkpoints, unresolved proposals, mandatory dynamic fields, active editor sessions/working copies, active signing phases) and disclosing that a refusal reports only the first problem encountered, plus the workaround of reading workflow_state.stage_transitions.done.blockers via get-document-info. That is exactly the behavioral detail annotations cannot carry.

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-loaded with the action, then a scannable bulleted condition list, then the failure-mode paragraph. Slightly long, but nearly every sentence carries operational value; the blocker detail justifies the length rather than padding it.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Given a state-mutating tool with a single documented parameter, the description covers preconditions, failure behavior, the recommended diagnostic call, and the automatic-transition exclusion — nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is 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% for the single document_uuid parameter, and the schema already tells the agent to use list-documents if the UUID is unknown. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (moves), resource (document), and target state (done stage) in the first sentence. It is immediately distinguishable from the sibling stage-transition tools move-document-to-review-stage and move-document-to-signing-stage without opening any schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

An explicit 'Use this tool when' block gives the qualifying source stages (draft, approved_draft, review, approved_review) and an exclusion: documents that will be signed through fynk move to done automatically and should not be routed here. Both the when and the when-not are stated.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources