fynk MCP

Update template signature block

update-template-signature-block

DestructiveIdempotent

Update the presentation of a signature block on a template.

Use this tool when:

The user wants to change how an existing signature block looks (its style or scale)

Only style and scale can be changed, and a field left out keeps its current value. The party a signature block belongs to cannot be reassigned; to move a signature block to a different party, delete it and create a new one. Use get-template-info with include=["signature_blocks"] to discover the signature blocks on a template and their UUIDs.

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": {
      "template_uuid": "<template_uuid>",
      "signature_block_uuid": "<signature_block_uuid>"
    },
    "name": "update-template-signature-block"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`scale`	No	Size of the signature block as a percentage of its default size, which is 100. Leave it out to keep the current size.
`style`	No	How the signature block looks: "regular" shows the party and the signatory's name and title beneath the signature, "minimal" only the signatory's name. Leave it out to keep the current style.
`template_uuid`	Yes	UUID of the template the signature block belongs to. Use list-templates to find it.
`signature_block_uuid`	Yes	UUID of the signature block to update (use get-template-info with include=["signature_blocks"] to find it)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`uuid`	No	Do not show to the user unless they ask for it
`scale`	No	Scale percentage of the signature block (50–150)
`style`	No	Visual style of the signature block
`ref_uuid`	No	A static reference identifier, allowing signature blocks in documents to be matched to their corresponding block in the source template. Do not show to the user unless they ask for it
`party_uuid`	No	UUID of the party this signature block belongs to. Do not show to the user unless they ask for it
`_entity_type`	No	Only relevant for tooling. Do not show to the user
`document_user_uuid`	No	UUID of the single signatory this signature block is bound to. Absent when the block is bound to its party instead, in which case every signatory of that party signs it. Do not show to the user unless they ask for it

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedNov 2, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / scale / description

Previous value: -"Scale percentage of the signature block (50–150)"New value: +"Size of the signature block as a percentage of its default size, which is 100. Leave it out to keep the current size."

changedInput schema / properties / style / description

Previous value: -"Visual style of the signature block"New value: +"How the signature block looks: \"regular\" shows the party and the signatory's name and title beneath the signature, \"minimal\" only the signatory's name. Leave it out to keep the current style."

changedInput schema / properties / template_uuid / description

Previous value: -"UUID of the template the signature block belongs to"New value: +"UUID of the template the signature block belongs to. Use list-templates to find it."

First observedOct 20, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Goes beyond annotations by disclosing partial-update semantics ("a field left out keeps its current value"), which corroborates idempotentHint=true and explains that omitted fields are preserved rather than reset. It also documents an irreversible constraint (no party reassignment). It stops short of covering permissions or what the destructiveHint=true annotation implies for this presentation-only edit.

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 summary sentence followed by a tight bullet for the use case, then constraints and a discovery pointer. Slight redundancy with the schema's own "leave it out to keep the current" wording keeps it from being maximally economical.

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?

With annotations, a 100%-covered schema, and an output schema all present, the remaining burden is routing and constraints, both of which are covered (when to use, what cannot change, how to find UUIDs). Nothing an agent needs to invoke this 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 coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented, including the "leave it out to keep current" behavior. The description adds only marginal value by clarifying that style and scale are the only mutable fields while the two UUIDs are merely identifiers, 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?

Names a specific verb (Update), resource (signature block on a template), and the exact scope of change (presentation: style or scale). This clearly separates it from create-template-signature-block, delete-template-signature-block, and update-template-party.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it ("The user wants to change how an existing signature block looks") and provides a negative case with an alternative workflow (party cannot be reassigned; delete and create a new one). It also routes the agent to get-template-info with include=["signature_blocks"] to discover UUIDs.

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?