Skip to main content
Glama

fynk MCP

by com.fynk.app
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Move document to review stage

move-document-to-review-stage
Destructive

Moves a document to the review stage.

Use this tool when:

  • The document's current stage is one of: draft, approved_draft, approved_review, signing or done

  • You want to share the document for review before moving to a later stage

This stage transition may be blocked by checkpoints on the document, or - when reverting a document that was not created from a template - by an account that only allows signing to start from a template. A refusal here reports just the first problem it runs into; call get-document-info first and read workflow_state.stage_transitions.review.blockers to see everything that is in the way at once.

If the document is in the process of being signed, or has been signed already, moving back to review will cancel the current signing process and invalidate any existing signatures.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
document_uuidYesUUID of the document to move to review. 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?

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that transitions can be blocked by checkpoints or account restrictions, that a refusal only reports the first problem, and critically that moving a signing/signed document cancels the signing process and invalidates existing signatures. This meaningfully elaborates the destructiveHint=true annotation rather than contradicting it.

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 core action in the first sentence and organizes conditions into bullets, with the destructive consequence last. It is somewhat long, but nearly every sentence carries actionable information, so size is justified by the complexity of the transition.

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?

For a single-parameter mutation tool with an output schema (so return values needn't be explained), the description covers the valid preconditions, the blocker-discovery alternative, and the destructive side effects. Nothing an agent needs 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%, so the single document_uuid parameter is already fully documented. The description adds only a pointer to list-documents for locating the UUID, which is marginal beyond the schema; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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') and resource ('document') plus the exact target state ('review stage'). Combined with sibling names like move-document-to-done-stage and move-document-to-signing-stage, an agent can tell which transition this performs without opening the 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?

Provides an explicit 'Use this tool when' list naming the valid current stages (draft, approved_draft, approved_review, signing, done) and the intent (share for review before a later stage). It also names the alternative get-document-info to pre-read blockers, so the routing decision is fully prescribed.

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

All fynk MCP toolsInspect
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