Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
chrischall

honeybook-mcp

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

sign_contract

Read-only

Generate a deep link to sign a vendor contract in the HoneyBook portal, with a confirmation step before the link is shared.

Instructions

Sign a contract you received from a vendor. In v1 this returns a deep link to the HoneyBook portal instead of signing headlessly — it signs nothing itself; the user signs in their browser. It still asks the user to confirm before handing over the link: a confirmation prompt where the client supports one; otherwise the first call returns a preview and a confirmToken, and only a repeat call with that token proceeds (see MCP_CONFIRM_MODE).

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
originNoPortal origin (e.g. https://<vendor>.hbportal.co). Optional when only one session is active.
file_idYesThe agreement file _id from list_workspace_files (file_type=agreement).
confirmTokenNoONLY for the two-step confirmation fallback (a client without MCP elicitation). The confirmToken from this same tool's phase-1 "confirmation-required" response, passed back ONLY after the user has seen that preview and explicitly approved it in chat — never on the first call, never invented, never reused. Call again with the same arguments. Ignored when the client supports elicitation.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.2.1
    • removedInput schema / properties / confirm
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Must be true to proceed. Without this, tool returns a preview.",
-  "type": "boolean"
-}
    • addedInput schema / properties / confirmToken
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "ONLY for the two-step confirmation fallback (a client without MCP elicitation). The confirmToken from this same tool's phase-1 \"confirmation-required\" response, passed back ONLY after the user has seen that preview and explicitly approved it in chat — never on the first call, never invented, never reused. Call again with the same arguments. Ignored when the client supports elicitation.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv1.0.0
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
  3. First observedv0.3.1

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds substantial context beyond that: it discloses that signing happens in the browser, that the tool hands over a deep link, and that a confirmation gate (elicitation or two-step confirmToken) is always enforced. This is exactly the behavioral detail an agent needs and it is consistent with the read-only annotation.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

It is front-loaded with the purpose and the important correction that it does not sign, but the middle sentences are dense with nested parentheticals about confirmation modes. Slightly longer than necessary, though every clause carries real information.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With no output schema, the description does the work of explaining what comes back (a deep link) and the two-phase confirmation contract. For a deceptively named tool with no output schema, this is complete enough to call correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so origin, file_id and confirmToken are already fully documented in the schema. The description restates the confirmToken fallback and references MCP_CONFIRM_MODE, which adds a little framing but is largely redundant with the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Sign a contract you received from a vendor') and then immediately corrects a natural misreading by stating it returns a deep link and signs nothing itself. This makes the tool's true function unambiguous and distinguishes it from the other session/link tools.

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?

It implies the use case (a contract from a vendor) and explains the confirmation flow, but never names an alternative or states when to pick this over siblings like use_magic_link or use_flow_link. The when-to-use context is implied rather than explicit.

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