OneSimpleAPI

GET|HEAD /api/pdf/signing/{id}/local-outbox

api_get_pdf_signing_id_local_outbox

Destructive

Existing api/pdf/signing/{id}/local-outbox 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_local_outbox"
  }
}

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

C2.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description does add real behavior: HTTP status, headers and body are preserved verbatim, redirects are not followed, and auth/transport headers are managed by the connection. It does not explain the destructiveHint=true / readOnlyHint=false annotation profile on a GET/HEAD-only endpoint, leaving that tension unexplained, but it does not contradict it either.

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 mostly front-loaded, but a large share is boilerplate repeated across the OneSimpleAPI family (credits, storage, redirect handling) rather than endpoint-specific information. Nothing is bloated, but little of it is uniquely useful here.

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 nested-schema endpoint with 7 parameters, 13 opaque domain options in both query and body, and no output schema. The description explains response transport mechanics but leaves the endpoint's actual purpose and the meaning of pdf/page/recipients/append_signing_record entirely undocumented.

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?

The schema's own field descriptions are placeholder text ("Existing API option; validated by the shared API implementation") for pdf, page, image, recipients and webhook_secret, and the description does nothing to compensate. It adds only placement guidance ("supply API parameters in query or body"), which is already implied by the query/body properties and the note that sensitive options belong in the body.

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 title path ("Existing api/pdf/signing/{id}/local-outbox API operation"). It never says what a "local outbox" is or what the operation retrieves, so an agent cannot distinguish it from siblings such as api_get_pdf_signing_id or api_get_pdf_signing_id_files_kind beyond the URL.

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?

No mention of when to use this endpoint versus the parent signing-record GET or the related file endpoints. The only routing guidance is that method defaults to GET, which is schema-level information rather than usage guidance.

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?