Skip to main content
Glama

ZapSign

by io.github.mcp-dir

zapsign_documents_write_create_from_template

Criar/alterar documentos de assinatura no ZapSign. Ações:

  • create (data): cria documento. Campos: name*, signers[]* (cada {name, email, phone_country, phone_number, auth_mode}); UMA fonte de arquivo: url_pdf | base64_pdf | url_docx | base64_docx | markdown_text; opc lang, disable_signer_emails, date_limit_to_sign, signature_order_active, folder_path, external_id.

  • create_from_template (data): cria via template. Campos: template_id*, signer_name*, data[]* (cada {de, para} substituindo {{VAR}}); opc signer_email, send_automatic_email, send_automatic_whatsapp, folder_path, external_id, lang.

  • update (doc_token, data): só com doc "em andamento". Campos: name, date_limit_to_sign, folder_path, extra_docs[].

  • delete (doc_token): soft-delete.

  • refuse (data): cancela/recusa. Campos: doc_token*, rejected_reason*, notify_signer.

  • place_signatures (doc_token, data): posiciona assinaturas por coordenadas. Campo: rubricas[] ({signer_token, page 0-based, relative_position_left/bottom, relative_size_x/y, type signature|visto}).

  • add_extra_doc (doc_token, data): anexa PDF extra. Campos: name*, url_pdf | base64_pdf.

[Flattened action: create_from_template]

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataNo
accountNo
doc_tokenNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, and the description says it creates/alters documents, which is consistent but adds little beyond that. It does not disclose side effects, idempotency, destructive behavior, or any operational constraints. For a write action, it fails to mention prerequisites or consequences of using this tool.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is verbose and includes a long list of actions and field definitions for multiple modes, most of which are irrelevant to the flattened action. It is not front-loaded; the key 'create_from_template' detail is buried among others. The trailing note attempts to clarify but does not mitigate the overall bloat.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Provides a complete list of parameters for create_from_template, but does not explain return values (no output schema) or any behavioral caveats (e.g., what happens on failure, whether the document is immediately active). It also does not clarify that other actions are not available in this tool, leaving potential for misuse. Adequate but not thorough.

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?

The input schema is extremely generic (data object with additionalProperties), so the description carries the burden. It clearly specifies required fields for create_from_template (template_id, signer_name, data[]) and optional ones (signer_email, etc.), and explains the data array structure. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states it creates/alters documents, and specifically lists 'create_from_template' with its fields, but also lists many other actions (create, update, delete, refuse, etc.) that are not the flattened action. This adds ambiguity about what this specific tool does, though the final note '[Flattened action: create_from_template]' clarifies the intent. It is not a tautology but lacks focus.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like zapsign_documents_write_create. The description lists other actions (e.g., 'create') which are handled by separate tools, potentially misleading an agent into thinking they are available here. There is no mention of alternatives or exclusions.

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

All ZapSign toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

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.

Naming Consistency3/5

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.

Tool Count2/5

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.

Completeness4/5

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.

Resources