Skip to main content
Glama

Open Agreements

by io.github.open-agreements

fill_template

Fill a legal agreement template with field values and return a document via URL or MCP resource preview metadata. For field-selector templates (e.g. NVCA), also generates a redline (track-changes) document comparing the filled output against the standard form.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
valuesNoField values to fill in the template.
templateYesTemplate ID, e.g. "common-paper-mutual-nda".
return_modeNoArtifact return mode. Defaults to "url".
redline_baseNoBase document for redline comparison. "source" = raw standard form (default), "clean" = cleaned intermediate.
include_redlineNoGenerate a redline (track-changes) document. Defaults to true for field-selectors.

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / include_redline / description
      Previous value: -"Generate a redline (track-changes) document. Defaults to true for recipes."New value: +"Generate a redline (track-changes) document. Defaults to true for field-selectors."
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description discloses that the tool returns a document via URL or MCP resource, and that redline generation occurs for field-selector templates. With annotations only indicating it is not read-only and not destructive, the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and the second sentence adds an important conditional behavior. No redundant information.

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

Completeness4/5

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

The description explains the tool's purpose, return modes, and the special redline case. Given the tool has no output schema and a nested `values` object, the description is sufficiently complete for the agent to understand the tool's behavior, though it could elaborate on expected `values` structure, but the schema covers that.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The input schema covers all 5 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds contextual information about redline generation for field-selector templates but does not add per-parameter details beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool fills a legal agreement template with field values and returns a document, distinguishing it from sibling tools that only list or retrieve templates. It also specifies the redline generation behavior for field-selector templates.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

While it doesn't name alternative tools, the description clearly implies the tool is for creating filled documents, and the sibling names suggest alternatives for reading templates. The conditional redline behavior for field-selector templates provides clear context on when that feature applies.

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

All Open Agreements 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

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clear and distinct purpose: template browsing (list_templates, search_templates, get_template), template filling (fill_template), signature workflow (send_for_signature, check_signature_status). No overlap or ambiguity.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., list_templates, check_signature_status). Verbs and nouns are clearly chosen, making the pattern predictable.

Tool Count5/5

With 6 tools covering the core workflow of template discovery, filling, and e-signature, the count is well-scoped and appropriate for the server's purpose. No unnecessary tools and no critical missing functionality.

Completeness5/5

The tool set covers the full lifecycle of working with legal agreement templates: discover (list, search, get), create filled document (fill_template), send for signature (send_for_signature), and retrieve signed PDF (check_signature_status). No obvious gaps for the intended use case.

Resources