GetSign MCP

getsign_validate_document_placeholders

Validate DOCX or PDF curly-brace placeholders against Monday board columns.

    Call as soon as a template is on the workflow, not at send. Accepts PDF
    and DOCX. First call (no mappings, no confirm) only reports: matched
    column ids, title-only matches that need confirmation, and unmatched
    names. Preferred token is {columnId}. Title-only tokens such as
    {Legal Email} do not fill until confirmed.

    If the file is a PDF and it contains {columnId} merge tokens, do not
    apply mappings. Offer a DOCX. If they choose DOCX, remove the PDF
    first with getsign_delete_envelope_document, then
    getsign_create_template with the DOCX and validate again.
    If they keep the PDF, warn that those placeholders may not be
    reflected as needed, then continue.

    Confirmation / apply (same tool, no second tool, DOCX only):
    1) Title matches with one candidate: confirm to rewrite {Legal Email}
       to {email_mm65p7yd} in the stored DOCX, then this call re-validates.
    2) Ambiguous titles: ask the user which column, then call again with
       mappings=[{token, columnId}].
    3) Unmatched only: ask proceed anyway or edit
       (getsign_get_document_url action=edit). Does not rewrite.
    4) All id-matched, or no placeholders: continue. Do not pass mappings
       or confirm - apply is never called when there is nothing to rewrite.
    Passing mappings skips elicitation and applies only pairs that are still
    title-match or unmatched. Already-correct {columnId} tokens are ignored.
    Never replaces a column id with a title or a Monday cell value.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`confirm`	No
`file_id`	No
`item_id`	No
`board_id`	No
`mappings`	No
`envelope_id`	No
`template_id`	No
`confirmation_token`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedSep 18, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses detailed behavioral characteristics: the first call only reports, confirmation rewrites tokens, passing mappings skips elicitation and applies only specific pairs, already-correct {columnId} tokens are ignored, and it never replaces a column id with a title or cell value. It also clarifies that PDFs with {columnId} tokens do not get mappings applied. Since annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint=false, etc.), the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does so thoroughly without contradicting 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 long but well-structured, with a clear opening, numbered steps, and paragraphs for distinct scenarios. It front-loads the core purpose and then provides necessary conditional details. While it is verbose, the complexity of the tool justifies the length. A slightly tighter edit could reduce redundancy (e.g., the PDF warning repeated), but overall it is structured effectively and every sentence serves a purpose.

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?

For a complex tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the purpose, initial call behavior, confirmation/apply flow, edge cases (PDF, ambiguous titles, unmatched names), and references to follow-up tools. It also implies the return information (matched ids, title-only matches, unmatched names) without needing an output schema. An agent would have sufficient context to invoke the tool correctly in all described scenarios.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The input schema has 8 parameters with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explicitly explains confirm (boolean for confirmation step) and mappings (array of {token, columnId}), and briefly mentions the 'file' concept, but does not systematically explain file_id, item_id, board_id, envelope_id, template_id, or confirmation_token. These are referenced indirectly (e.g., 'the stored DOCX') but not given clear semantics. The description partially compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions but leaves several parameters under-explained.

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 clear, specific statement: 'Validate DOCX or PDF curly-brace placeholders against Monday board columns.' This names the verb (validate), the resource (placeholders), and the context (Monday board columns). It distinguishes from sibling tools like getsign_detect_placeholders_ai, which likely only detects placeholders without validating against columns. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately actionable.

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 usage guidance throughout: call timing ('Call as soon as a template is on the workflow, not at send'), conditional handling (PDF vs DOCX, first call vs confirmation), and explicit references to alternative tools (getsign_delete_envelope_document, getsign_get_document_url). It also explains when NOT to apply mappings and when to use confirm vs mappings. This is comprehensive and leaves no ambiguity about when to use this tool versus others.

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?