Skip to main content
Glama
esignaturescom

MCP Server for eSignatures

remove_template_collaborator

Remove a collaborator from an eSignature template to manage access permissions and maintain template integrity.

Instructions

Removes the template collaborator

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
template_idYesTemplates's GUID.
template_collaborator_idYesCollaborator's GUID.

Implementation Reference

  • Handler implementation for the 'remove_template_collaborator' tool. Makes a POST request to the eSignatures API endpoint to remove a collaborator from a template.
    if name == "remove_template_collaborator":
        response = await httpxClient.post(f"/api/templates/{arguments.get('template_id')}/collaborators/{arguments.get('template_collaborator_id')}/remove?token={secret_token}")
        return [types.TextContent(type="text", text=f"Response code: {response.status_code}, response: {response.json()}")]
  • Registration of the 'remove_template_collaborator' tool in the list_tools() decorator method.
    types.Tool(
        name="remove_template_collaborator",
        description="Removes the template collaborator",
        inputSchema=INPUT_SCHEMA_REMOVE_TEMPLATE_COLLABORATOR
    ),
  • Input schema definition for the 'remove_template_collaborator' tool, specifying required template_id and template_collaborator_id.
    INPUT_SCHEMA_REMOVE_TEMPLATE_COLLABORATOR = {
        "type": "object",
        "properties": {
            "template_id": {"type": "string", "description": "Templates's GUID."},
            "template_collaborator_id": {"type": "string", "description": "Collaborator's GUID."}
        },
        "required": ["template_id", "template_collaborator_id"],
    }
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. While 'removes' implies a destructive mutation, it doesn't specify whether this requires admin permissions, if the action is reversible, what happens on success/failure, or any rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented.

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, direct sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. Every word ('Removes the template collaborator') contributes essential information without redundancy or fluff.

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 complexity of a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on permissions, side effects, error handling, or return values, which are crucial for safe and effective use. The high schema coverage helps with parameters, but overall context is insufficient for a mutation operation.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters clearly documented as GUIDs for the template and collaborator. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or relationship details. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 action ('removes') and the resource ('template collaborator'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_template' or 'withdraw_contract', which also involve removal operations, so it doesn't fully distinguish itself from alternatives.

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 (e.g., needing to list collaborators first), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'delete_template' (which removes the entire template) or 'list_template_collaborators' (which might be used to identify collaborators to remove).

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

Install Server

Other Tools

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/esignaturescom/mcp-server-esignatures'

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