Skip to main content
Glama
devin-lemcke

CanUSign MCP Server

by devin-lemcke
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Related Servers

Alternatives to CanUSign MCP Server

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • heu-legal-mcp

      heulegal
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Integrates the HEU Legal API to manage native HEU documents and PDFs, enabling creation, sharing for e-signature, prompting signers, and downloading PDFs through conversation with Claude.
      18
      64 PyPI
      1
      MIT
    • Formify MCP by formify-e-sign

      Formify MCPofficial

      formify-e-sign
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      Enables AI agents to create fillable PDFs, send contracts for e-signature, verify signers via BankID or ID scans, and track post-send document workflows.
      5
      MIT

    • MCP Server for eSignatures.

      esignaturescom
      A
      license
      B
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      eSignatures.com MCP: full control of contract content from your AI. Read and rewrite contracts and templates as Markdown, before and after sending. Send for signature, manage signers, create public signing links and track status. Hosted with OAuth, no install. Pay-per-use, no subscription.
      13
      53 PyPI
      40
      MIT
    Deploy Server
    One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

    TDQS

    A4/5.0

    Scored across 6 tools

    Disambiguation4/5

    The tools are mostly distinct: create/update/list/get/delete cover contract lifecycle, and list_attachment_types is clearly a supporting lookup. Minor ambiguity exists between get_contract and list_contracts, but their descriptions (specific vs. list) make the boundary clear.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: create_contract, update_contract, list_contracts, get_contract, delete_contract, list_attachment_types. The pattern is uniform and predictable.

    Tool Count5/5

    Six tools is well-scoped for a contract-signing server: full CRUD plus a supporting lookup for attachment types. Each tool earns its place without redundancy or bloat.

    Completeness4/5

    The contract lifecycle is well covered: create, update, list, get, delete, plus attachment-type lookup. A minor gap is the lack of a dedicated tool to view signing status/activity beyond what update_contract returns, but the core workflows are complete.

    Maintenance

    ActivityMaintained
    ResponsivenessNo issues

    Resources