stiply_list_signersList the signers of a sign request with email, name, role (signer/approver/cc/dc), authentication method and sign URL. Stiply API: GET /v2/sign_requests/{id}/signers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sign_request_id | Yes | The sign request id (from stiply_list_sign_requests). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description is extremely helpful by explicitly detailing the returned attributes (email, name, role, authentication method, sign URL). This level of detail drastically reduces ambiguity about the expected output structure, especially when only the existence of an output schema is noted as false.
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 a single, dense sentence that efficiently covers the purpose, the data returned, and the underlying API method without unnecessary filler. It is perfectly sized for the task.
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?
Given that the tool is read-only and involves only one input, the description provides all necessary context, including the specific data elements returned (roles, URLs, auth methods) and the underlying API structure, making it completely actionable.
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?
The schema coverage is 100%, setting a baseline score of 3. The description repeats the context of the parameter (it comes from a sign request) but adds no semantic meaning beyond what the structured input schema already covers.
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 explicitly states the action ('List the signers') and the resource ('a sign request'). It clearly defines the scope of the operation, distinguishing it from broader management functions provided by sibling tools.
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?
While it does not explicitly name alternatives, the highly specific nature of the tool—listing *only* signers—provides clear usage guidance. An agent knows this tool is for granular roster inspection, differentiating it from general request retrieval.
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.