Skip to main content
Glama
Expert-Integrado

Conexa MCP

by Expert-Integrado
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Remote

POST /contract/:id/signature/request (Contract)

request_contract_signature

Send a contract for electronic signature using D4Sign integration. Define signers, delivery method (email or WhatsApp), and authentication requirements.

Instructions

Solicitação de envio do Contrato para Assinatura Eletrônica através da integração feita pela D4Sign dentro do sistema Conexa.

Campos do body:

  • contractTemplateId (integer) [obrigatório]: ID do modelo de contrato a ser utilizado para gerar o PDF

  • contractNumber (string/null): Número do contrato (id) para ser substituído no parametro do modelo

  • companySigners (array of objects) [obrigatório]: Dados do signatário da empresa (sócio)

  • companySigners[].deliveryValue (string) [obrigatório]: Valor de entrega conforme o método escolhido (e-mail ou número de celular do sócio)

  • companySigners[].deliveryMethod (string) [obrigatório]: Método de envio da solicitação de assinatura para o sócio. Valores aceitos: email , whatsapp

  • companySigners[].role (string) [obrigatório]: Papel/função do signatário da empresa no contrato

  • customerSigners (array of objects) [obrigatório]: Dados do signatário do cliente

  • customerSigners[].deliveryMethod (string) [obrigatório]: Método de envio da solicitação de assinatura para o cliente. Valores aceitos: email , whatsapp

  • customerSigners[].deliveryValue (string) [obrigatório]: Valor de entrega conforme o método escolhido (e-mail ou número de celular do cliente)

  • customerSigners[].role (string) [obrigatório]: Papel/função do signatário do cliente no contrato

  • customerSigners[].name (string) [obrigatório]: Nome do signatário do cliente no contrato

  • requirePhoto (boolean/null): Exige foto do documento do signatário para autenticação

  • requirePhotoWithSelfie (boolean/null): Exige foto do documento com selfie para autenticação

  • requireDigitalCertificate (boolean/null): Exige certificado digital ICP-Brasil para assinatura

  • requireInPersonSignature (boolean/null): Exige assinatura presencial

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesValor de :id na rota /contract/:id/signature/request
bodyYesCorpo JSON da requisição (campos na descrição da tool)

Tool Definition Quality

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which are consistent with a mutation that is not destructive. The description adds context about the integration (D4Sign) and the process (PDF generation from template, sending via email/whatsapp), but does not disclose side effects, such as whether a signature request record is created or if there are idempotency guarantees.

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 description is verbose with a long list of fields, but it is well-structured with headings and clear field definitions. The purpose is front-loaded, but the length could be reduced without losing clarity.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The description thoroughly covers input parameters but omits output or return values. There is no explanation of what happens after a successful request (e.g., response status, signature request ID). Also, error conditions and prerequisites are not mentioned. Given the tool's complexity, this is a notable gap.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The input schema only defines id and body, leaving body fields unspecified. The description compensates by listing all required and optional body fields with their types, constraints (obrigatório), and allowed values (e.g., email, whatsapp). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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's purpose: to request sending a contract for electronic signature via D4Sign integration. It specifies the endpoint and distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_contract or delete_contract.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose implies it's for signature requests after contract creation, there is no mention of prerequisites, conditions, or alternative tools for similar tasks.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Expert-Integrado/conexa-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server