dropbox_sign_list_signature_requestsList signature requests the account can access, newest first. Paginated. API: GET /signature_request/list.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number to return. Default 1. | |
| query | No | Search string to filter requests (e.g. title, signer email). | |
| page_size | No | Results per page (max 100). Default 20. | |
| account_id | No | Account id whose requests to list (defaults to the caller). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows it's a safe read operation. The description adds behavioral details: pagination, newest-first ordering, and the API endpoint. No contradictions with annotations.
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 extremely concise with two sentences. It front-loads the core purpose and structure, with no wasted words or repetition.
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 listing tool with 4 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers key aspects: what is listed, ordering, pagination, and API reference. It is adequate though it doesn't mention response format or default page size (already in schema).
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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters with descriptions. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides.
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?
Description clearly states the verb 'list', resource 'signature requests', and specifies ordering 'newest first' and pagination. It also mentions the API endpoint, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like cancel or get.
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?
The description implies usage for listing signature requests but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned.
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.