EAD Factory MCP Server

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

add_document_to_signature_request

Adds a document to a signature request — the first step of a 2-step upload (add, then PUT the file bytes to the returned upload URL). Use once per document that needs signing.

Instructions

Adds a document to a signature request — the first step of a 2-step upload (add, then PUT the file bytes to the returned upload URL). Use once per document that needs signing. Requires: create_signature_request → signatureRequestId, and the document's SHA-256 hash (compute it before calling, or use the signature_request_full composite tool). Add signatories with add_signatory_to_document before activating. Signature type: INTERPOSITION = EAD Factory mediates the signing act on the signatory's behalf (e.g. an OTP sent via WhatsApp/SMS) — the signatory needs no software or certificate. | ADVANCED = Advanced electronic signature — the signatory signs directly (signing pad or certificate); a stronger legal tier than INTERPOSITION. | OTHER = A signature type not covered by INTERPOSITION or ADVANCED.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`hash`	Yes
`title`	Yes
`detached`	No
`fileSize`	No
`filename`	Yes
`metadata`	No
`provider`	No
`sequence`	No
`evidenceId`	No	MANDATORY. UUID of the evidence record. Obtain from evidence_group_evidence_register or generate_evidence.
`description`	No
`convertToPdf`	No
`signatureType`	Yes
`certificateFiles`	No
`signatureDeadline`	No
`signatureRequestId`	Yes	MANDATORY. UUID of the signature request. Obtain from create_signature_request.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	No
`url`	No
`expiration`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv1.4.0Sep 14, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / signatureDeadline / pattern

Previous value: -"^(?:(?:\\d\\d[2468][048]|\\d\\d[13579][26]|\\d\\d0[48]|[02468][048]00|[13579][26]00)-02-29|\\d{4}-(?:(?:0[13578]|1[02])-(?:0[1-9]|[12]\\d|3[01])|(?:0[469]|11)-(?:0[1-9]|[12]\\d|30)|(?:02)-(?:0[1-9]|1\\d|2[0-8])))T(?:(?:[01]\\d|2[0-3]):[0-5]\\d(?::[0-5]\\d(?:\\.\\d+)?)?(?:Z))$"New value: +"^(?:(?:\\d\\d[2468][048]|\\d\\d[13579][26]|\\d\\d0[48]|[02468][048]00|[13579][26]00)-02-29|\\d{4}-(?:(?:0[13578]|1[02])-(?:0[1-9]|[12]\\d|3[01])|(?:0[469]|11)-(?:0[1-9]|[12]\\d|30)|(?:02)-(?:0[1-9]|1\\d|2[0-8])))T(?:(?:[01]\\d|2[0-3]):[0-5]\\d:[0-5]\\d(?:\\.\\d+)?(?:Z))$"

First observedv1.3.1Aug 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description discloses the 2-step upload behavior, the need to PUT file bytes to the returned upload URL, the hash prerequisite, and the meaning of each signatureType enum value. Annotations are mostly false booleans, so the description carries the behavioral burden and does so well, though it does not detail side effects beyond the workflow.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose and workflow, and every section serves a purpose. The signature type explanations are verbose but valuable for correct enum selection, so the length is justified despite being dense.

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?

The description covers the core workflow, prerequisites, and sibling-tool routing, but the tool has 15 parameters and a complex nested schema. Omitting evidenceId and most optional parameters makes it incomplete for fully correct invocation, even though the output schema likely covers return values.

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 only 13%, so the description must compensate. It adds real meaning for signatureRequestId, hash, and signatureType, but ignores many optional parameters and never mentions evidenceId, which the schema itself labels MANDATORY. It partially compensates but leaves notable gaps.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Adds a document to a signature request') and clearly frames it as the first step of a 2-step upload workflow. It distinguishes itself from related sibling tools like create_signature_request, add_signatory_to_document, and signature_request_full by naming them in context.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It gives explicit prerequisites (create_signature_request → signatureRequestId, precomputed SHA-256 hash), sequencing (add signatories before activating), and an alternative path (signature_request_full composite tool). It also states 'Use once per document', which is actionable usage guidance.

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

Deploy Server