get_documentRetrieve a single document’s status, including each recipient’s opened, signed, or declined state, any decline reason, and timestamps.
Full status of one document: each person, whether they opened, signed or declined (with the reason), and when.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already supply readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral value by spelling out exactly what the response contains per recipient, including the decline reason and timing, which is more than the annotations convey.
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 enumerating the returned fields with zero filler. Nothing is redundant or buried.
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 one-parameter read with no output schema, describing the response contents is exactly the right compensation, and it does so precisely. It could still mention a not-found or permission behavior, but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.
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 0% and the single id parameter has no description, but its uuid format makes the identifier type evident from the schema. The phrase "one document" weakly ties id to a document identifier, yet the description never states whether it is the document UUID versus a signing-link token.
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 resource and scope ("Full status of one document") plus the exact contents returned: per-person opened/signed/declined state, decline reason, and timestamps. It is clearly a single-document read, implicitly distinguished from list_documents, but never names a sibling explicitly.
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?
No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The phrase "one document" hints that this is the single-record counterpart to a list call, but an agent must infer that rather than being told how it differs from get_history or list_documents.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.