Signature Maker

Make a signature

make_signature

Read-onlyIdempotent

Writes a name as a signature in one of 24 script styles, with name format, slant, size, underline, ink and natural hand. Returns the image as a transparent PNG and an SVG, plus a link to the same signature on Signature Maker.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "make_signature"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ink`	No	Ink color: green, black, blue or a six-digit hex color such as #1e3a8a. Default green.
`name`	Yes	The name to write, 1 to 60 characters.
`size`	No	Size as a percentage from 40 to 130. Default 100.
`slant`	No	Slant in degrees from -15 to 30. Default 4.
`style`	No	Signature style id, one of the 24 script styles such as great-vibes, allura or alex-brush. Default great-vibes.
`underline`	No	True adds an underline stroke under the name. Default false.
`nameFormat`	No	How the name is written: full (every word), initial-last (first initial and last word) or monogram (the first letter of each word). Default full.
`naturalHand`	No	True adds slight unevenness to each letter, like real ink. Default true.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`png`	Yes
`svg`	Yes
`item`	Yes
`kind`	Yes
`name`	Yes
`view`	Yes
`links`	Yes
`style`	Yes
`settings`	Yes
`displayName`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 11, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, non-open-world behavior, so the description's main added value is the output shape: a transparent PNG, an SVG, and a hosted link to the signature on Signature Maker. That is genuinely useful behavioral context a caller would not otherwise know. Minor gap: it does not say whether the hosted link is persistent or how large the returned images are.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the first states the action and tunable dimensions, the second states exactly what comes back. The purpose is front-loaded and nothing is repeated or wasted.

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?

With annotations, a full output schema, and 100% schema coverage, the agent has almost everything needed to call this correctly. The description fills the remaining gaps on output format; only guidance on picking among the 24 styles and among sibling tools is missing.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% with defaults, ranges, and enums fully documented, so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description enumerates the same knobs (name format, slant, size, underline, ink, natural hand) without adding default values, ranges, or guidance on choosing a style, which is baseline performance when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Writes a name as a signature') plus concrete scope details: 24 script styles and the tunable attributes. It is unambiguous what the tool produces, but it never names or distinguishes itself from close siblings such as handwritten_signature, leaving the agent to infer the difference from names alone.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing guidance. The closest sibling, handwritten_signature, plausibly overlaps with this tool, and the description offers nothing to disambiguate the choice.

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

All Signature Maker tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.