spacesheep

request_signatures

Ask named people to sign a version of a space you own (15 a month on a free account once it is past its first week; unlimited on Pro, Max and team accounts — a refusal says which limit and the day it lifts). Each party gets an email and a bell, is given viewer access if they lack it, and signs in the viewer with a typed name and consent — a signature is always the person's own act, never a tool's. The version is frozen bytes; the content hash of its files is what gets signed. Signing a newer head later needs a new request. Defaults to the latest version.

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": {
      "uuid": "<uuid>",
      "parties": "<parties>"
    },
    "name": "request_signatures"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`note`	No	One line to the parties, in the request email
`uuid`	Yes	Space UUID, full URL, @handle/slug, or a slug belonging to you
`parties`	Yes	Who signs, in any order
`supersedes`	No	The id of an earlier request this one amends (an amended contract)
`version_sha`	No	A version sha from list_versions; omit for the latest

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedOct 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With annotations only declaring mutability/safety flags, the description carries substantial extra behavior: free-account quota (15/month after the first week), that a refusal names the limit and the day it lifts, that each party gets an email and a bell plus viewer access if lacking it, that signing is a personal act requiring a typed name and consent, and that the signed artifact is the content hash of frozen bytes. This is well beyond what the annotations disclose.

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 a single dense paragraph but front-loads the core action before quotas and mechanics. The nested parentheticals make it slightly harder to scan, though nearly every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

For a non-output-schema mutation tool, the description covers quota limits, party notification, access granting, and what is actually signed. What is missing is any hint of the success response shape (e.g., the created request id needed later by withdraw_signature_request or signing_status).

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantic value: 'Defaults to the latest version' for version_sha and the immutability implication that a newer head requires a new request. The note and parties fields are largely left to schema descriptions, so it does not fully earn a 5.

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 opening states a precise verb and resource — 'Ask named people to sign a version of a space you own' — and immediately scopes it to spaces the caller owns. An agent can distinguish this from sibling tools like signing_status or withdraw_signature_request without opening a schema.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It gives clear usage context ('you own', defaults to the latest version, a newer head needs a new request) and routes to siblings ('see signing_status for the roles the page carries', 'a version sha from list_versions'). It stops short of stating explicit when-not conditions or naming a preferred alternative, so it falls short of a 5.

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

All spacesheep 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?