Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
zyta-sign-mcp

zyta-sign-mcp

by blanck1945
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Revocar pedido de firma externa

kairo_revoke_external_request

Revokes an external signature request, instantly disabling the signing link. Requires write permissions.

Instructions

Invalida un pedido de firma externa (el link deja de funcionar inmediatamente). Requiere scope 'write'.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "documentId": "<documentId>",
      "requestId": "<requestId>"
    },
    "name": "kairo_revoke_external_request"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
documentIdYes
requestIdYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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 discloses that the link stops working immediately, which is the key behavioral trait. However, it does not mention irreversibility or side effects, but the immediate effect is well communicated.

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 sentence with a parenthetical clarification. It is front-loaded with the action and effect, with no wasted words.

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

Completeness2/5

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

The tool has no output schema, no annotations, and the description is very brief. It lacks details on return value, error conditions, idempotency, or prerequisites beyond scope. The agent is left with uncertainty about the behavior after revocation.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain the two parameters (documentId, requestId). An agent cannot infer their meaning beyond the parameter names, which is insufficient.

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 action (invalida un pedido de firma externa) and the immediate effect (el link deja de funcionar). The resource and verb are specific, and the tool is distinct from siblings like kairo_request_external_sign.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description mentions a prerequisite: requires 'write' scope. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context of revocation is clear given the sibling tools (no other revoke tool exists).

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools