Skip to main content
Glama

ZapSign

by io.github.mcp-dir

zapsign_documents_write_place_signatures

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: place_signatures]

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

D1.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations do not include safety hints (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description only mentions 'soft-delete' for one action but does not disclose side effects for the place_signatures action, such as whether it modifies the document irreversibly or requires specific conditions.

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 overly verbose for a tool named 'place_signatures', containing a large block of text that covers seven different actions. This is not concise and does not have a clear structure focused on the tool's actual purpose.

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

Completeness1/5

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

The description fails to clarify that this tool is for placing signatures only, and it does not explain return values (no output schema). The presence of multiple actions makes it incomplete for the intended use case, leaving the agent uncertain about what to expect.

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 input schema is generic (data, account, doc_token) with no field descriptions. The description provides some explanation for the data field in the place_signatures action (rubricas[] with coordinates), but it also lists parameters for other actions, creating confusion about which fields apply to this tool. The coverage is partial and not exclusive.

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 lists multiple document actions (create, update, delete, refuse, place_signatures, etc.) without indicating that this tool is specifically for placing signatures. The tool name suggests a focused purpose, but the description is ambiguous, making it unclear what the tool actually does.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (e.g., zapsign_documents_write_create, zapsign_documents_write_update). The description does not differentiate use cases or mention any alternatives.

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