Skip to main content
Glama
esign-cn-open-source

e签宝 MCP Server

Official
by esign-cn-open-source
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
JavaScript
Hybrid

Server Quality Checklist

50%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: create_sign_flow initiates a signing process, while query_sign_flow retrieves details about an existing one. There is no overlap in functionality, making it easy for an agent to choose the correct tool based on the task.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case: create_sign_flow and query_sign_flow. The naming is predictable and aligns well with their respective actions, ensuring clarity and uniformity.

    Tool Count2/5

    With only two tools, the server feels under-scoped for an e-signature domain, which typically requires operations like updating flows, canceling, downloading documents, or managing templates. This limited set may hinder agents from completing common workflows.

    Completeness2/5

    The tool surface is severely incomplete for e-signature functionality. It lacks essential operations such as updating or canceling flows, downloading signed documents, and managing templates or signers. Agents will face significant gaps in handling full signing lifecycles.

  • Average 2.9/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.

    If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.

    MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • 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 of behavioral disclosure. The description only states it queries details, which implies a read operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what format/details are returned. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

    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?

    The description is extremely concise with just three words, which is appropriately sized for a simple query tool. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Query'), but could benefit from slightly more detail to improve clarity without sacrificing brevity. There's no wasted language.

    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?

    Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, 100% schema coverage, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'sign flow' refers to, what details are returned, or any behavioral aspects. With no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more context to be fully helpful to an AI 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 input schema has 100% description coverage (the 'flowId' parameter is documented as 'Sign flow ID'), so the baseline score is 3. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what the schema already provides—it doesn't explain what a 'sign flow' is, how to obtain the ID, or any constraints on the ID format.

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

    Purpose3/5

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

    The description 'Query sign flow details' states a general purpose (querying details about sign flows) but lacks specificity about what 'details' means or what resource is being queried. It distinguishes from the sibling 'create_sign_flow' by using 'query' vs 'create', but doesn't clarify what distinguishes it beyond the basic verb difference. The purpose is vague but not tautological or misleading.

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

    Usage Guidelines2/5

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

    The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context for usage, or any exclusions. The only implied usage is that it's for querying rather than creating (based on sibling name), but this is not explicitly stated in the description itself.

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

  • Behavior2/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions automatic PDF conversion for non-PDF files, it doesn't cover critical behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, what happens after creation, or whether this is a destructive/mutative operation. The description is insufficient for a tool that creates resources.

    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 extremely concise with just two sentences that efficiently convey key information about format support and PDF conversion. Every word earns its place, and it's front-loaded with the core purpose.

    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?

    For a creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, what happens after creation, error handling, or important behavioral constraints. The agent would be missing critical context needed to use this tool effectively.

    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 the schema already fully documents all parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema descriptions. It mentions format support generally but doesn't provide parameter-specific insights. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

    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 specific action ('创建签署流程' - create signing flow) and resource (files with multiple formats), distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'query_sign_flow' which presumably queries rather than creates. It specifies the verb and resource precisely.

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

    Usage Guidelines2/5

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

    The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any context about prerequisites or exclusions. It mentions format support but doesn't explain when to choose this over other tools or what scenarios it's designed for.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

mcp-server-esign MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

mcp-server-esign MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/esign-cn-open-source/mcp-server-esign'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server