Skip to main content
Glama

zapsign_templates_write_delete

Gerenciar templates no ZapSign. Ações:

  • create (data): cria template DOCX. Campos: name*, docx_url | base64_docx*; opc first_signer{}, lang, observers[], folder_path/folder_token, redirect_link.

  • update (template_token, data): metadados (o DOCX em si é imutável). Campos: name, lang, observers[], first_signer, folder_path/token, redirect_link.

  • delete (template_token): irreversível.

[Flattened action: delete]

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataNo
accountNo
template_tokenNo

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

The description adds important context by calling delete 'irreversível', but this directly contradicts the annotation destructiveHint=false. An irreversible delete is destructive, so the description and annotation are in conflict.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The delete line is short and clear, but the description dedicates significant space to create/update field lists that are irrelevant for a delete-only flattened tool. This clutter reduces conciseness without adding value for the actual operation.

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 tool with no output schema and misleading annotations, the description should cover success/failure behavior, account handling, and whether template_token is the only needed parameter. It only mentions irreversibility, leaving key operational details unexplained.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It only clarifies that template_token identifies the template for deletion, but does not explain account or data parameters, nor does it state requiredness or parameter format.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description explicitly states 'delete (template_token): irreversível' and ends with '[Flattened action: delete]', making it clear the core operation is deleting a template. However, it also lists create/update actions, which introduces ambiguity about whether this exact tool can perform those operations.

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 guidance is given on when to use this delete tool versus the create/update siblings. The description merely enumerates all possible actions without stating 'use delete only to permanently remove a template' or explicitly excluding create/update from this flattened tool.

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

Try in Browser

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.