GetSign MCP

getsign_report_issue

Read-onlyIdempotent

Report a GetSign problem so the team can debug it. Never sends document content.

    Call this when a GetSign tool failed or did the wrong thing and the user
    wants it looked at. GetSign's server sees only tool calls, never the
    chat, so this is the only way what the user was trying to do reaches us.

    description: what the user wanted and what actually happened, in your
    own words. Do not paste document text, signer emails, or tokens.
    tool: the GetSign tool that misbehaved, if one did.
    reference: the reference / support_id from the failing tool result,
    if present — it links this report to the exact server-side request.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`tool`	No
`reference`	No
`description`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedSep 18, 2026

TDQS

A5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Alongside the read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive annotations, the description discloses non-obvious behaviors: the tool never sends document content, and the server receives only tool calls, not chat. It also instructs agents to avoid pasting document text, signer emails, or tokens, and explains that the reference maps to the exact server-side request. These are meaningful privacy and traceability facts not present in the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is appropriately sized for a diagnostic tool, and each sentence earns its place: purpose, when to use, server visibility, and one line per parameter. The most important safety fact, 'Never sends document content', is front-loaded, and the parameter guidance is laid out in a scannable list.

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?

This is a simple three-parameter diagnostic report with an output schema, so the description does not need to document return values. It covers the failure condition, what must not be included, the optional tool/reference fields, and why this path is necessary. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 carries the full semantic burden for all three parameters. It defines description as 'what the user wanted and what actually happened' with explicit exclusions, tool as the misbehaving GetSign tool, and reference as the support_id from the failing result. This is exactly the meaning an agent needs beyond bare names and types.

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 object: 'Report a GetSign problem so the team can debug it.' It clearly identifies the tool as the debugging/reporting path, and the condition 'when a GetSign tool failed or did the wrong thing' separates it from the functional sibling tools. The 'Never sends document content' clause adds an essential qualifier.

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 explicitly states the trigger: 'Call this when a GetSign tool failed or did the wrong thing and the user wants it looked at.' It also preempts the main alternative channel by explaining that GetSign's server sees only tool calls, never the chat, making this the only way to route context to the team. No sibling offers the same reporting role, so further exclusions are unnecessary.

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

All GetSign MCP 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?