Skip to main content
Glama
esignaturescom

MCP Server for eSignatures. com

Related Servers

Alternatives to MCP Server for eSignatures. com

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables AI agents and developers to create, send, and follow up on contracts for e-signature, manage signers and templates, retrieve signed PDFs and audit trails, and verify PDF signatures. It keeps signing and declining in the hands of each signer through personal links.
      1
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables AI agents to create and manage contract templates, draft agreements by filling in template variables and signers, send documents out for legally binding e-signature, and track signer status as signatures come in. It runs as a hosted remote server, so there is nothing to install or self-host.
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables users to query, create, and manage contracts in plain English from any MCP client, including drafting and sending agreements, tracking renewals and signers, and building templates. It supports OAuth-authenticated workflows with safe defaults such as creating drafts and confirming before sending or changing live agreements.
      MIT
    • F
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Enables users to create, manage, and track electronic signing requests and templates through Claude Desktop and other MCP-compatible clients. Provides multi-tenant authentication with customer API keys for secure document workflow operations.
      66 npm
      -

    TDQS

    B3.4/5.0

    Scored across 13 tools

    Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose targeting specific resources and actions, such as create_contract vs. withdraw_contract for contracts, and create_template vs. update_template for templates. There is no overlap or ambiguity in functionality, making tool selection straightforward for an agent.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tools follow a consistent verb_noun naming pattern, such as create_contract, delete_template, and list_recent_contracts. The naming is uniform throughout, with no deviations in style or convention, enhancing readability and predictability.

    Tool Count5/5

    With 13 tools, the server is well-scoped for eSignatures, covering core operations like contract and template management, collaboration, and querying. Each tool serves a distinct and necessary function without being excessive or insufficient for the domain.

    Completeness4/5

    The tool set provides comprehensive CRUD and lifecycle coverage for contracts and templates, including collaboration features. Minor gaps exist, such as no direct tool for updating contract details or handling signer-specific actions beyond querying, but agents can likely work around these with the available tools.

    Maintenance

    ActivityMaintained
    ResponsivenessNo issues