EAD Factory MCP Server

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

create_signature_request

Creates a new signature request — the top-level container for documents and signatories in a signing flow. Use this first, before add_document_to_signature_request. No prerequisites.

Instructions

Creates a new signature request — the top-level container for documents and signatories in a signing flow. Use this first, before add_document_to_signature_request. No prerequisites. Example: create_signature_request({ name: 'NDA — Acme Corp', createdBy: 'jane@company.com' }) returns { id, ... } — use the returned id as signatureRequestId in subsequent calls.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes
`language`	No
`provider`	No
`createdBy`	Yes
`senderName`	No
`closeConfig`	No
`description`	No
`webhookUris`	No
`notifications`	No
`senderAddress`	No
`uniqueValidator`	No
`signatureRequestBody`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	No
`name`	No
`status`	No
`language`	No
`provider`	No
`createdBy`	No
`senderName`	No
`description`	No
`webhookUris`	No
`notifications`	No
`senderAddress`	No
`uniqueValidator`	No
`cancellationReason`	No
`signatureRequestBody`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed5 schema fields changedv1.4.0Sep 14, 2026

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

changedInput schema / properties / senderAddress / pattern

Previous value: -"^(?!\\.)(?!.*\\.\\.)([A-Za-z0-9_'+\\-\\.]*)[A-Za-z0-9_+-]@([A-Za-z0-9][A-Za-z0-9\\-]*\\.)+[A-Za-z]{2,}$"New value: +"^(?:[A-Za-z0-9_'+\\-]+\\.)*[A-Za-z0-9_'+\\-]*[A-Za-z0-9_+-]@(?:[A-Za-z0-9][A-Za-z0-9\\-]*\\.)+[A-Za-z]{2,}$"

removedOutput schema / properties / signatureRequestBody / items / allOf

Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "additionalProperties": {},
-    "properties": {
-      "createdAt": {
-        "type": "string"
-      },
-      "updatedAt": {
-        "type": "string"
-      }
-    },
-    "type": "object"
-  },
-  {
-    "additionalProperties": {},
-    "properties": {
-      "additionalText": {
-        "type": "string"
-      },
-      "body": {
-        "type": "string"
-      },
-      "participantRole": {
-        "type": "string"
-      },
-      "signatureRequestId": {
-        "type": "string"
-      },
-      "status": {
-        "type": "string"
-      },
-      "subject": {
-        "type": "string"
-      }
-    },
-    "type": "object"
-  }
-]

addedOutput schema / properties / signatureRequestBody / items / properties

Added value: +{
+  "additionalText": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "body": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "createdAt": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "participantRole": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "signatureRequestId": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "status": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "subject": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "updatedAt": {
+    "type": "string"
+  }
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / signatureRequestBody / items / type
```
Added value: +"object"
```

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 annotations only set readOnlyHint=false, indicating mutation. The description builds on that by clarifying it creates a container, returning an id, and stating there are no prerequisites. It does not conflict with annotations and adds practical behavioral context (the returned id and its reuse). However, it does not disclose any side effects like notifications or whether partial creation is possible, which would have boosted the score further.

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 two sentences: the first delivers the core purpose and ordering, the second provides a concrete example and the follow-up action. It is front-loaded with the essential information and contains zero filler. Every sentence earns its place, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 is adequate for the minimal use case: it tells the agent to create with name and createdBy, get an id, and proceed to add documents. However, given the tool has 12 parameters with nested objects and enums, the description does not guide the agent on optional fields that may be critical for specific flows (e.g., webhookUris, closeConfig). Since an output schema is indicated, return values are covered, but the parameter usage beyond the basics remains undocumented, leaving a moderate gap.

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

Parameters2/5

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

With a schema description coverage of 0%, the description was expected to compensate for the 12 parameters. It only illustrates 'name' and 'createdBy' via an example, and does not explain any of the other parameter semantics (e.g., closeConfig, provider, signatureRequestBody). The example implicitly shows the required fields but does not clarify their meaning beyond what the schema names suggest. This is insufficient compensation for parameters that have complex nested structures and enums.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Creates a new signature request' and identifies it as 'the top-level container for documents and signatories in a signing flow.' It explicitly differentiates it from the sibling add_document_to_signature_request by saying 'Use this first, before add_document_to_signature_request,' leaving no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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?

The description provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use this first, before add_document_to_signature_request' and 'No prerequisites.' It also instructs the agent to use the returned id as signatureRequestId in subsequent calls, giving a clear sequencing and onward pointer that is highly actionable.

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

Deploy Server