Templates (modelos DOCX) no ZapSign (leitura). Ações: list (page — 20/página); get (template_token — inclui inputs[] das variáveis {{VAR}}).
[Flattened action: list]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| account | No | ||
| template_token | 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, which cover safety. The description adds a behavioral detail: pagination with 20 items per page for the list action. However, it does not mention other behaviors such as whether all templates are returned, sorting, or filtering. Given the strong annotations, the extra info is minimal but sufficient for a basic list operation.
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 but includes both list and get actions, which is redundant for a tool specifically named zapsign_templates_list. It has a structured format with actions and parameters, but the inclusion of get adds noise. It is not overly verbose but could be more focused and clearly front-loaded on the list action.
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 list tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description only addresses pagination and omits explanations of 'account' and 'template_token'. It also does not describe what the list returns or how it differs from other listing tools like zapsign_documents_list. The lack of parameter details and output expectations makes it incomplete for an agent to use correctly.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only explains the 'page' parameter (with 20/página), while 'account' and 'template_token' are not described at all in the context of the list action. The description adds no meaning for two of the three parameters, leaving their roles ambiguous.
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 translates to 'Templates (DOCX models) in ZapSign (read)' and then lists both 'list' and 'get' actions, with a note that this tool is the flattened 'list' action. It is not explicitly stated that this tool lists templates; the verb is implied rather than expressed. It does not clearly differentiate from the sibling zapsign_templates_get since both actions are mentioned in the same description.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions both list and get actions but does not advise that list should be used for enumerating templates while get is for individual details. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.
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.