Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MCP Server for eSignatures. com

MCP Server for eSignatures. com

by esignaturescom
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

list_recent_contracts

Retrieve details of the most recent contracts to monitor activity and manage eSignature workflows.

Instructions

Returns the the details of the latest 100 contracts.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_recent_contracts"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention the 100-item limit and recency, but it does not define what 'latest' means, what fields are included in 'details,' or whether the operation is read-only.

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 no filler, and the key scope ('latest 100 contracts') is front-loaded. The minor typo 'the the' does not meaningfully reduce conciseness or structural quality.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a zero-parameter listing tool with no output schema, this description conveys the core behavior but leaves ambiguity about ordering semantics and the exact shape of the returned contract details. It is adequate for basic selection but not fully complete.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify; the baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed given the empty schema.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the verb ('Returns') and the resource/scope ('details of the latest 100 contracts'), making the basic purpose understandable. It does not explicitly differentiate from query_contract, but the 'latest 100 contracts' framing is specific enough to distinguish it from template-related siblings.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as query_contract or create_contract. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or selection criteria, so the agent must infer usage solely from the name and minimal description.

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