Skip to main content
Glama

Send one PDF to many separate signers

bulk_signature_requests

Fan one already-rendered PDF out to up to 100 independent signers in a single call — the 'send this NDA to everyone on the list' path. Each signer gets their own request, their own sign link and their own invitation email, but they all share one source render, so only one document is produced and stored. Choose create_envelope instead when the recipients are signing the SAME document together and you need routing, ordering and one envelope status; choose this when they are unrelated parties each signing their own copy. Duplicate signer emails within one batch are rejected up front with 422. Per-signer failures do not abort the batch: the response is { bulkId, count, successCount, failureCount, results } in input order, each row either ok with signatureId and signUrl or ok:false with a reason, and the call returns 207 when any row failed. Consumes one signature from the monthly quota PER signer (free tier: 10 per month, then per-signature billing), so a large batch can exhaust a small plan part-way through and the remaining rows come back failed. Requires a Kamy API key with the signatures:write scope; without a key, returns dashboard setup instructions.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
messageNoShared invite message. `{{signerName}}` is substituted per recipient.
signersYes1–100 signers. Duplicate emails are rejected up front with 422.
positionNoOne signature rectangle in PDF points (origin bottom-left) shared by every signer.
renderIdYesRender UUID every signer receives. One render, one storage object, many requests.
expiresInNoSign-link lifetime in seconds. Min 1 hour, max 30 days. Defaults to 7 days.
reminderCadenceHoursNoAuto-reminder cadence in hours, shared across the batch. Up to 3 reminders.

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description goes far beyond by detailing: duplicate email rejection (422), per-signer failure handling (207 with structured response), quota consumption ('consumes one signature per signer' with free tier details), required API scope ('signatures:write'), and auth fallback ('without a key, returns dashboard setup instructions'). No contradictions with annotations.

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?

The description is dense but not bloated — every clause adds value. It front-loads the core action and use-case, then layers on behavioral details, error handling, quota notes, and auth. A minor point: the quota explanation ('free tier: 10 per month...') could be slightly more concise, but it earns its place by preventing costly mistakes.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, nested objects, batch + quota + auth concerns, no output schema), the description covers the most critical gaps: partial failure model, response shape, quota exhaustion, and auth scope. Loses one point because it doesn't describe the reminderCadenceHours default behavior (it says 'up to 3 reminders' but not whether 0 cadence disables them) and doesn't explicitly state whether expiresIn has a default (it does from schema: 7 days).

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds crucial context beyond property descriptions: it explains the shared position rectangle, the per-signer CC behavior, the uniqueness constraint on signerEmail (duplicate 422), the reminder cadence limit (up to 3 reminders), and the substitution template for message ({{signerName}}). This enriches every parameter with real usage semantics.

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 uses a specific verb ('fan out') and resource ('already-rendered PDF to up to 100 independent signers'), immediately distinguishing it from siblings like create_signature_request and create_envelope. It clearly states what the tool does and contrasts with a sibling ('Choose create_envelope instead when...').

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?

The description explicitly explains when to use this tool (unrelated parties each signing their own copy) vs when to use create_envelope (same document together with routing). It also notes that duplicate signer emails are rejected (422) and covers batch behavior (partial failures, response format, per-signer quota consumption).

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose with detailed descriptions that differentiate similar tools (e.g., render_pdf vs render_async vs render_batch, create_signature_request vs create_envelope). No two tools overlap in a way that would cause confusion.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent lower_snake_case verb_noun pattern (e.g., attest_artifact, convert_document, list_renders). No mixing of conventions or ambiguous verb choices.

Tool Count4/5

47 tools is high but reflects the broad scope of the platform (document generation, signing, auditing, scheduling, webhooks, verification). Some informational tools could be merged, but the count is still reasonable for the domain.

Completeness3/5

The tool set covers the core document lifecycle well but has notable gaps: no tool to delete renders, no tool to void/cancel signature requests, and no CRUD for templates (only list and schema). The inability to pause schedules via MCP is also a gap.

Resources