Skip to main content
Glama

ZapSign

by io.github.mcp-dir

zapsign_documents_write_delete

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: delete]

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

D1.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The description explicitly states 'soft-delete' for the delete action, which adds behavioral context beyond the annotations (which do not indicate destructiveness). However, the rest of the description provides unrelated behavioral details, and no other traits (auth, side effects) are disclosed for delete.

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

Conciseness1/5

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

The description is excessively long, listing seven distinct actions for a tool that is only supposed to handle delete. The delete-specific information is buried in a large block of irrelevant text, making it inefficient and poorly structured.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a delete operation, the description only says 'soft-delete' and names the doc_token parameter. It lacks details on required fields, how to structure the request, expected outcomes, or error conditions. The tool is not fully described for practical use.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The description clarifies that delete uses doc_token, but it does not explain the purpose of 'data' and 'account' parameters. With 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate, but it leaves these unexplained, making parameter usage incomplete.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description begins with a broad statement about creating/altering documents and lists many actions, but only the line 'delete (doc_token): soft-delete.' relates to the tool's actual purpose. The inclusion of unrelated actions (create, update, refuse, etc.) makes the purpose confusing and not focused on delete.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like zapsign_documents_write_create or zapsign_documents_write_update. The description simply lists actions without contrasting them or explaining contexts, leaving the agent without direction.

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