OneSimpleAPI

POST /api/pdf/signing/{id}/cancel

api_post_pdf_signing_id_cancel

Destructive

Existing api/pdf/signing/{id}/cancel 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 POST. 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_post_pdf_signing_id_cancel"
  }
}

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?

The annotations already disclose destructive, non-idempotent, open-world behavior, so the description is not required to establish that safety profile. It adds useful generic transport behavior—HTTP status/header/body preservation, redirects not followed, default POST, and query/body placement—but says nothing cancellation-specific, such as whether the action is reversible or what happens to recipients and signing records.

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 description is short and begins with the endpoint, but much of it is generic boilerplate about the upstream API, credits, and storage. It is not verbose, but its information density is low and the most important cancellation behavior is absent.

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?

For a destructive signing-request operation with seven parameters, nested body options, and no output schema, the definition omits critical context: what cancellation does, whether it is reversible, expected response/error behavior, and how it differs from adjacent lifecycle operations. The generic transport notes do not fill that gap.

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?

Schema coverage is 71%, and the schema descriptions are largely placeholders like "Existing API option; validated by the shared API implementation." The description adds no meaning for the path id, body options, files, headers, or content_type, and does not clarify which options belong in query versus body beyond the schema's general note.

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 mostly restates the tool name and endpoint path: "Existing api/pdf/signing/{id}/cancel API operation." It does not explain what cancellation actually does to a signing request, such as voiding pending signatures, removing recipients, or terminating the workflow. It also gives no differentiation from siblings like api_post_pdf_signing_id_finalize or api_post_pdf_signing_id_send.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use cancellation versus finalize, send, patch, or resend, nor any prerequisites such as required signing-request state. The only usage-related text is generic transport advice: "Supply API parameters in query or body."

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?