Skip to main content
Glama

getsign_create_workflow

Create a Getsign workflow for a Monday board, optionally from templates.

    THIS IS THE DEFAULT WAY TO CREATE A WORKFLOW. A workflow (envelope) is
    board-scoped, so creating one needs only board_id and workflow_name — no
    item.

    workflow_name is REQUIRED — ask the user what to call the workflow before
    calling this, and do not invent a name on their behalf. The backend has no
    name fallback: creating without one produces an envelope literally named
    "undefined (Copy)" on the board. The name is user-visible on the monday
    board, so prompt for something recognizable — usually the source document
    or the kind of agreement (e.g. "NDA - Acme Corp"). Calling with a blank or
    whitespace-only name returns MISSING_WORKFLOW_NAME instead of creating
    anything.

    A new workflow inherits the account's email configuration (sender
    identity, message, reminders, logo, OTP) and security settings by
    default. Ask the user whether to inherit those from the account or
    override them with workflow-specific ones, and pass the answers as
    inherit_account_email_configuration / inherit_account_security_settings
    (True = inherit, False = override with this workflow's own values). Leave
    them unset to keep the account-inheriting default. Overriding email
    config is what lets a workflow have its own logo/sender that don't track
    later account changes.

    The response carries a display_summary (the same curated four-section
    view as getsign_get_workflow). Present that summary — section titles +
    descriptions + current values — rather than the raw settings blob, and
    only expand a section's details when the user asks about it.

    The response also carries post_create_questions — ALWAYS ask both of
    its questions right after creation, before attaching a document or
    mapping fields: (1) template workflow vs. Use stored document for
    where the signing document comes from, and (2) whether to enable any
    of the optional features (Generate document, Signature collection,
    Share and track). Explain each option using the given descriptions.
    Asking is mandatory — enabling or choosing anything is not. A "decide
    later" answer is fine, don't block on it, and never flip a toggle on
    without an explicit yes.
    

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
board_idYes
workflow_nameYes
template_gallery_idsNo
inherit_account_security_settingsNo
inherit_account_email_configurationNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The annotations are minimal, but the description exposes important behaviors: blank names produce MISSING_WORKFLOW_NAME or an envelope literally named 'undefined (Copy)', new workflows inherit account email/security config by default, and responses include display_summary and mandatory post_create_questions. This is exactly the kind of side-effect and user-visible consequence information agents need.

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 paragraph carries actionable content: required user prompts, failure modes, defaults, response presentation, and mandatory follow-up questions. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and uses emphasis well, though it could be tightened with bullets or shorter paragraphs.

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?

Even with no output schema, the description tells the agent what to do before calling, what to ask during creation, what the response will contain, how to present it, and what follow-up is mandatory. It also covers error cases and inheritance defaults, making the complete create-workflow flow actionable.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description compensates well: workflow_name's required nature, no fallback, and blank-name error are explained; board_id's role is clarified; both inherit_* booleans are fully specified with True/False meaning and defaults. The only gap is template_gallery_ids, which is only implied by 'optionally from templates' rather than explicitly documented.

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?

Starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a Getsign workflow for a Monday board, optionally from templates.' It immediately clarifies board scoping, notes that only board_id and workflow_name are needed, and distinguishes itself with 'THIS IS THE DEFAULT WAY TO CREATE A WORKFLOW.' This is far beyond the name/title and prevents confusion with other workflow or template tools.

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?

Gives clear pre-call guidance: ask the user for a workflow_name, do not invent one, ask about inheritance settings, and ALWAYS ask post-create questions. It also explains sequencing relative to attaching documents or mapping fields. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the 'default way to create a workflow' plus the board-scoped context makes the main use case unambiguous.

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