download_signed_pdfSave a completed signed PDF with its certificate of completion as the last page to a specified local file path.
Saves the sealed, signed PDF (with the certificate of completion as last page) of a COMPLETED document to a local file.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| saveTo | Yes | Local path for the PDF, e.g. ./signed/contract.pdf |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With annotations present, the description still adds meaningful context: the document must be completed, the file is written locally, and the output includes the certificate of completion as a final page. Missing are behaviors that matter for a write-to-disk tool: whether an existing file is overwritten, and what error/result is returned for a non-completed document.
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?
One front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the precondition and the notable output detail (certificate page) are packed in without wasted words.
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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, precondition, and output composition adequately. It would be complete at 5 with a note on file overwrite behavior or how failures (non-completed document) surface.
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 coverage is 50% — saveTo is documented in the schema with an example path, while id has no schema description. The description partially compensates by implying id must reference a COMPLETED document, but adds no syntax or constraint detail for either parameter (e.g., file extension requirements, path resolution). Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
States a specific verb (saves/downloads) and resource (the sealed signed PDF) plus what it contains (certificate of completion as last page), which lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like verify_pdf or get_document. It does not explicitly name a sibling, so it stops short of a 5.
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 capitalized 'COMPLETED document' gives an implied precondition for use, which is real guidance. However, no alternative is named (e.g., verify_pdf for validation, get_document for metadata) and no when-not-to-use case is stated beyond the completion requirement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.