Verificação de antecedentes no ZapSign (leitura). Ação: get (check_id — status not_started|in_progress|delayed|error|completed + pdf_report).
[Flattened action: get]
Bulk support: accepts check_ids for batched execution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | No | ||
| check_id | Yes | ||
| check_ids | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it returns a status (with possible values) and a PDF report, and that it supports batched execution via check_ids. This provides behavioral context beyond the annotations without contradicting them.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: an opening sentence with purpose, a brief action/response summary, and a separate mention of bulk support. The '[Flattened action: get]' line is somewhat redundant after 'Ação: get', but the overall text remains tight and scannable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read tool with 3 parameters, no output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description covers the core purpose, return values, and bulk capability. However, it omits the meaning of the 'account' parameter, error behavior, and the exact format of the PDF report, leaving minor gaps in completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains check_id as the identifier and check_ids for bulk execution, but the optional 'account' parameter is not explained at all. It also doesn't clarify the relationship between check_id and check_ids or any format constraints, leaving parameter semantics partially incomplete.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it is a background check verification in ZapSign (leitura) and specifies the action 'get', with explicit return values (status with enumerated values + pdf_report). The resource 'checks' distinguishes it from sibling tools for documents, templates, and signers.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'leitura' (read) and action 'get' clearly indicate this is for read-only retrieval of check statuses. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the resource specificity and read-only nature provide clear context. Bulk support via check_ids is mentioned, though there is no explicit guidance on when to use batch vs single.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a distinct name and purpose, with clear separation between read and write actions. However, the high number of similarly-prefixed tools (e.g., zapsign_documents_write_*) and the overlap between create and create_from_template could occasionally cause misselection.
Domain tools follow a consistent zapsign_<resource>_<action> pattern, with writes marked by _write_. However, platform-level tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace) break the pattern, and zapsign_list_accounts deviates from the resource-prefix convention.
35 tools is excessive, especially since many are flattened actions from a smaller set of underlying operations. The inclusion of non-domain platform tools further inflates the count, making the tool list feel heavy and harder to navigate.
The core ZapSign domain is well covered: documents, signers, templates, webhooks, checks, and account management all have CRUD-like operations. Minor gaps exist, such as no listing endpoint for checks and no webhook list (due to API limitations), but these are not fatal for typical workflows.