OneSimpleAPI

GET|HEAD /api/pdf/signing/{id}

api_get_pdf_signing_id

Destructive

Existing api/pdf/signing/{id} API operation. Uses the OneSimpleAPI API (https://onesimpleapi.com/docs), with the same permissions, credits and storage. Supply API parameters in query or body. method defaults to GET. Outputs preserve HTTP status, headers and JSON/text/base64 body; redirects are returned without following them.

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": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "api_get_pdf_signing_id"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`body`	No	API request body. Nested objects, arrays, HTML, base64 data and all API options retain their original meaning.
`path`	Yes
`files`	No	Multipart uploads keyed by API field name (for example pdf). Supply file_name, base64 bytes and optional mime_type. Uploads use the existing API file validators.
`query`	No	URL query parameters. Sensitive API options must be in body as documented by the API.
`method`	No
`headers`	No	API request headers such as Idempotency-Key, Range and If-None-Match. Authentication and transport headers are managed by the connection.
`content_type`	No	Defaults to application/json, or multipart/form-data when files are supplied.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 5, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

It does add real behavioral context beyond the annotations: HTTP status/headers/body are preserved, base64 is possible, and redirects are returned unfollowed. However, it never addresses the destructiveHint=true / readOnlyHint=false annotations, and in fact implies a read-only GET/HEAD-only call, leaving the agent with no idea what could be destroyed or which permissions/credits apply beyond a link.

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?

Roughly sixty words with the operational facts (routing, method default, output/redirect handling) stated plainly and up front. The opening sentence is pure filler restating the title, but nothing else is padded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

This is a seven-parameter, nested-body wrapper around a third-party endpoint with no output schema, yet the description omits what the operation returns for a signing request, what the credits cost is, and how body vs query vs files interact. Given the complexity and the near-empty parameter descriptions, far more is needed for an agent to call it correctly.

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 71%, and the schema's own descriptions for pdf, page, image, recipients, webhook_url etc. are the uninformative "Existing API option". The description adds only the query-vs-body routing rule and the method default, which is genuinely useful but does not explain the semantics of the signing-specific fields. Baseline 3 applies given decent coverage.

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

Purpose2/5

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

"Existing api/pdf/signing/{id} API operation" restates the tool name and title without saying what the operation actually does with a signing record (retrieve status? fetch a signed PDF?). The only real content is that it proxies OneSimpleAPI and defaults to GET. An agent cannot tell this apart from api_get_pdf_signing or api_patch_pdf_signing_id beyond the path shape.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description gives transport instructions ("supply API parameters in query or body", "method defaults to GET") but no when-to-use guidance and no exclusions relative to siblings such as api_patch_pdf_signing_id, api_post_pdf_signing_id_cancel or api_get_pdf_signing_id_local_outbox. Choosing this tool over its siblings is left entirely to inference from the name.

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

All OneSimpleAPI 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?