OneSimpleAPI

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

api_post_pdf_signing_id_send

Destructive

Existing api/pdf/signing/{id}/send 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_send"
  }
}

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?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description is not required to establish the risk profile. It does add some useful context beyond annotations: shared permission/credit/storage semantics, that HTTP status, headers, and body are preserved, and that redirects are returned rather than followed. It omits the operation-specific behavior the agent most needs, namely that sending triggers delivery to recipients and is not reversible or idempotent.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the operation name and free of padding, so nothing is bloated. But the content is generic wrapper boilerplate shared across the API surface, so compactness comes at the cost of substance.

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?

With seven parameters, nested body/query objects, multipart file uploads, and no output schema, this is a complex tool, yet the description never explains the operation's effect or expected inputs. An agent could construct a syntactically valid call but has no basis for choosing correct option values or anticipating side effects.

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 description adds only that method defaults to POST and that parameters may go in query or body. The nested schema descriptions for body/query fields are placeholder text ("Existing API option; validated by the shared API implementation"), so despite nominal 71% coverage, real semantics for pdf, recipients, webhook_url, action, and typed are absent from both schema and description.

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 endpoint path: "Existing api/pdf/signing/{id}/send API operation." It never says what 'send' accomplishes (e.g., dispatching the signing request to recipients), so an agent must infer purpose from the name alone and cannot distinguish it from finalize or resend without guessing.

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 when-to-use guidance and no reference to the closely related siblings (cancel, finalize, resend, patch). The only directional text is a generic mechanic: "Supply API parameters in query or body," which does not help an agent choose between this tool and its signing-flow alternatives.

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?