MCP Server for eSignatures. com

withdraw_contract

Cancel a sent contract before it's signed. Use this tool to retract contracts that need revision or should not proceed.

Instructions

Withdraws a sent contract.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "contract_id": "<contract_id>"
    },
    "name": "withdraw_contract"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`contract_id`	Yes	GUID of the contract to be withdrawn.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedAug 18, 2025

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It only states the action 'withdraws a sent contract' and gives a state precondition, but does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, reversible, requires permissions, or produces side effects. For a mutation tool, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 very concise and front-loaded, with no wasted words. However, it is arguably under-specified rather than efficiently complete, so it does not earn a 5.

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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description is too sparse to fully contextualize a mutating contract operation. It does not clarify the contract lifecycle, what 'withdraw' entails, when it is valid, or how it differs from deletion, leaving an agent without enough context to invoke it confidently.

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% and the single parameter contract_id is already documented as 'GUID of the contract to be withdrawn.' The description adds little beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 states the specific verb 'withdraws' and the resource 'sent contract,' which clearly identifies the operation and distinguishes it from generic contract actions. However, it does not explicitly contrast with delete_contract, so some ambiguity remains about whether withdrawal is a deletion or a state transition.

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 like delete_contract, query_contract, or create_contract. The phrase 'sent contract' implies a precondition, but exclusions, prerequisites, and alternative routing are left entirely to inference.

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

Deploy Server