OneSimpleAPI

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

api_get_pdf_signing_id_files_kind

Destructive

Existing api/pdf/signing/{id}/files/{kind} 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_files_kind"
  }
}

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

C2.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description never explains why a GET/HEAD file operation is flagged destructive or non-idempotent. It does add genuine transport context beyond the annotations: redirects are not followed, HTTP status/headers are preserved, and query-vs-body placement is allowed. That is useful but does not resolve the tension with the destructive flag.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The text is short and not padded, but it is front-loaded with a tautology and spends its sentences on generic gateway boilerplate (credits, storage, status preservation) rather than the operation's actual semantics.

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?

Seven parameters, nested body/query/files objects and no output schema — a complex definition that needs the description to explain what the call returns and what the path segments select. The description instead gives a generic HTTP passthrough statement, leaving the agent unable to predict results or choose between this and sibling file/signing tools.

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

Parameters2/5

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

With 71% schema coverage and parameter descriptions that are uniformly boilerplate ('Existing API option; validated by the shared API implementation'), the description needed to supply real meaning for fields like kind, action, typed, append_signing_record and recipients. Instead it only says 'Supply API parameters in query or body,' adding nothing the schema does not already state.

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?

The description only restates the name: "Existing api/pdf/signing/{id}/files/{kind} API operation." It never says what the operation actually does — retrieve, list, or download the files associated with a signing request — so an agent must infer purpose from the path template alone. The rest of the text describes transport mechanics rather than the resource being acted on.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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

No guidance on when to use this versus siblings such as api_get_pdf_signing_id or api_get_files, no prerequisites, no exclusions. The only conditional statement ('method defaults to GET') is about invocation mechanics, not tool selection.

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?