Skip to main content
Glama

getsign_create_template

Create a Getsign template via a two-phase presigned upload — call this tool TWICE.

    Call 1 (omit storage_key): pass file_name + content_type (required here).
    Returns data.url (presigned PUT) and data.storage_key. PUT the raw file
    bytes straight from disk to data.url with a shell command — curl -X PUT
    --data-binary @path -H "Content-Type: <type>" (or curl -T path) — never by
    reading the file into chat/base64 first, since that defeats the point of
    this flow for anything but tiny files.

    It must be a PUT and must send Content-Type as its only header. Dropping
    -X PUT makes curl send a POST and S3 answers 403 SignatureDoesNotMatch.
    Adding any x-amz-* header, including a correctly computed
    x-amz-checksum-crc32, answers 403 AccessDenied. The x-amz-checksum-crc32
    already in data.url is an empty-body checksum and needs no action. Keep the
    error body on failure — a 403 from S3 means the request was malformed, not
    that storage is unreachable.

    Call 2 (same file_name/content_type/board_id/envelope_id/item_id, plus
    storage_key=data.storage_key from call 1): registers the uploaded file as
    a template.

    Auto-attaches to a workflow item only if BOTH envelope_id and item_id are
    passed together on call 2 — the file then shows up in
    getsign_list_envelope_documents with envelopeId/boardId/itemId already
    set, no separate select-template call needed. Passing only board_id (or
    envelope_id alone, without item_id) registers the file as a standalone
    template unattached to any workflow — follow up with
    getsign_select_template_for_workflow before editor/send tools will see it.

    Only pass item_id when you mean a specific Monday item (>0). A falsy
    item_id is omitted from the payload.
    

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
item_idNo
board_idNo
file_nameYes
envelope_idNo
storage_keyNo
content_typeNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses critical behavioral traits: the tool must be called twice, the first call returns a presigned URL and storage key, the second registers the file, and the upload must be a raw PUT with only Content-Type header. It even warns about specific 403 errors and the x-amz-checksum-crc32 trap. This is rich, actionable behavioral transparency.

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 long but every sentence earns its place: it covers the two-phase flow, curl command, header constraints, error interpretation, attachment logic, and parameter semantics. It is front-loaded with the most important instruction ('call this tool TWICE') and structured with clear call 1/call 2 sections. Slightly verbose in the curl details, but those details prevent real failures, so the length is justified.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (two-phase upload, presigned URL, S3 constraints, attachment logic) and the absence of an output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains what the first call returns (data.url and data.storage_key), how to perform the upload, what errors mean, and how the second call completes registration. An agent has everything needed to invoke the tool correctly without guessing.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does. It explains the role of each parameter across the two calls: file_name and content_type are required for call 1, storage_key comes from call 1's response for call 2, and board_id/envelope_id/item_id control attachment behavior. It also clarifies that a falsy item_id is omitted from the payload. This adds meaning far beyond the raw schema.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: creating a Getsign template via a two-phase presigned upload. It specifies the exact verb ('Create'), the resource ('Getsign template'), and the mechanism ('two-phase presigned upload'), and it distinguishes the two calls needed. This is far more specific than a generic 'create template' and helps an agent understand the tool's unique role among siblings.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: it explains the two-call sequence, when to omit storage_key (call 1) and when to include it (call 2), and when to pass envelope_id/item_id together for auto-attachment versus standalone registration. It also names the follow-up tool (getsign_select_template_for_workflow) for the unattached case, giving clear alternatives and conditions.

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.

Resources