Skip to main content
Glama
Synctest-hub

BoldSign MCP Server

by Synctest-hub

get_user

Retrieve detailed user information from BoldSign using their unique ID to manage e-signature workflows and user data.

Instructions

Retrieves detailed information for a specific BoldSign user based on their unique user ID.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
userIdYesRequired. The unique identifier (ID) of the user to retrieve. This can be obtained from the list users tool.

Implementation Reference

  • The core handler function implementing the logic for the 'get_user' tool. It initializes the BoldSign UserApi client with configuration and retrieves user properties by userId.
    async function getUserHandler(payload: GetUserSchemaType): Promise<McpResponse> {
      try {
        const userApi = new UserApi();
        userApi.basePath = configuration.getBasePath();
        userApi.setApiKey(configuration.getApiKey());
        const userProperties: UserProperties = await userApi.getUser(payload.userId);
        return handleMcpResponse({
          data: userProperties,
        });
      } catch (error: any) {
        return handleMcpError(error);
      }
    }
  • Zod input schema validation for the 'get_user' tool, requiring a userId.
    const GetUserSchema = z.object({
      userId: commonSchema.InputIdSchema.describe(
        'Required. The unique identifier (ID) of the user to retrieve. This can be obtained from the list users tool.',
      ),
    });
  • Tool definition object for 'get_user', specifying name, description, schema, and handler wrapper. The method is set to 'get_user' from ToolNames.
    export const getUserToolDefinition: BoldSignTool = {
      method: ToolNames.GetUser.toString(),
      name: 'Get user',
      description: 'Retrieves detailed information for a specific BoldSign user based on their unique user ID.',
      inputSchema: GetUserSchema,
      async handler(args: unknown): Promise<McpResponse> {
        return await getUserHandler(args as GetUserSchemaType);
      },
    };
  • Registration of users API tools array, including the getUserToolDefinition.
    export const usersApiToolsDefinitions: BoldSignTool[] = [getUserToolDefinition, listUsersToolDefinition];
  • Top-level registration of all BoldSign tools, spreading usersApiToolsDefinitions which includes 'get_user'.
    export const definitions: BoldSignTool[] = [
      ...contactsApiToolsDefinitions,
      ...documentsApiToolsDefinitions,
      ...templatesApiToolsDefinitions,
      ...usersApiToolsDefinitions,
      ...teamsApiToolsDefinitions,
    ];

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.0.0
    • addedInput schema / $schema
      Added value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
  2. First observed

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states this is a retrieval operation, which implies it's likely read-only and non-destructive, but it does not explicitly confirm this, nor does it mention any behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, or error handling. This leaves gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key usage note without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the main action and resource, making it highly concise and effective.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but not fully complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameter context, but lacks details on behavioral aspects like what 'detailed information' includes or any operational constraints, which could be helpful for an agent.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema fully documents the 'userId' parameter. The description adds minimal value by reiterating it's for a 'specific BoldSign user' and referencing the 'list users tool', but does not provide additional semantics beyond what the schema already covers, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('detailed information for a specific BoldSign user'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_users' beyond the singular vs. plural distinction, which is why it scores 4 instead of 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage by specifying 'based on their unique user ID' and references obtaining the ID from 'list users tool', providing some context. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_users' or other user-related tools, leaving room for interpretation.

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