Skip to main content
Glama

Signatoro

by com.signatoro
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Preview an email signature

create_signature
Read-onlyIdempotent

Make a free email signature from a name and optional title, company, phone, email, website, LinkedIn, layout and accent color. Returns the signature as HTML (for the HTML part of an email or a signature box that takes HTML) and as plain text, plus claimUrl, a link that opens it in Signatoro with these details and layout to save and edit. Nothing is saved and no account is needed; always give the person claimUrl with: "Open this link to save and edit it in Signatoro." To save a signature to the signed-in person's Signatoro account ("create my signature", "save it"), use update_my_signature instead; for the signature they already saved, use get_signature.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesFull name. Required.
colorNoAccent color as a 6-digit hex, e.g. "#6a040f".
emailNoEmail address.
phoneNoPhone number as it should read.
titleNoJob title, e.g. "Head of Operations".
layoutNoOne of line, mark, portrait, stack, compact. Call list_templates to choose. Defaults to line.
companyNoCompany name.
websiteNoWebsite, e.g. "northwind.co".
linkedinNoLinkedIn profile URL.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / email / anyOf
      Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "const": "",
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "format": "email",
-    "pattern": "^(?!\\.)(?!.*\\.\\.)([A-Za-z0-9_'+\\-\\.]*)[A-Za-z0-9_+-]@([A-Za-z0-9][A-Za-z0-9\\-]*\\.)+[A-Za-z]{2,}$",
-    "type": "string"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "const": "",
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "format": "email",
+    "maxLength": 200,
+    "pattern": "^(?!\\.)(?!.*\\.\\.)([A-Za-z0-9_'+\\-\\.]*)[A-Za-z0-9_+-]@([A-Za-z0-9][A-Za-z0-9\\-]*\\.)+[A-Za-z]{2,}$",
+    "type": "string"
+  }
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description reinforces rather than contradicts them ('Nothing is saved and no account is needed'), consistent with the 'Preview' title. Beyond that it discloses the return payload (HTML plus plain text plus claimUrl) and the persistence semantics of claimUrl as the only way to keep the result, which the annotations alone do not convey.

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?

It is front-loaded with the purpose, then routing, then the mandated claimUrl sentence, so the most important content lands first. It is somewhat dense for three sentences and the quoted instruction sentence is long, but each part carries distinct decision-relevant information.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a 9-parameter, single-required-parameter tool with no output schema, the description still covers the return shape (HTML, plain text, claimUrl), the persistence guarantee, account requirements, and the sibling alternatives. Nothing an agent needs to call and follow up correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented with type, constraints, and examples (hex pattern, layout enum, list_templates hint). The description only restates the field list at a high level and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description opens with a specific verb and resource ('Make a free email signature from a name and optional title, company, phone...') and enumerates the inputs it accepts. It explicitly differentiates itself from siblings by name: update_my_signature for saving, get_signature for a saved one, and list_templates for layout choice. An agent can place this tool precisely without opening any schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It gives explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use routing ('To save a signature to the signed-in person's Signatoro account ... use update_my_signature instead; for the signature they already saved, use get_signature'). It also states the operative precondition ('no account is needed') and even prescribes the follow-up behavior (always surface claimUrl with the given sentence), which is unusually actionable.

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

All Signatoro toolsInspect
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