EAD Factory MCP Server

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

signature_request_list

Read-onlyIdempotent

List signature requests, optionally filtered by close condition among other criteria. Use to find a request when you don't have its id (e.g. by name or status).

Instructions

List signature requests, optionally filtered by close condition among other criteria. Use to find a request when you don't have its id (e.g. by name or status). Signature-request close condition: ALL_REQUIRED = The request only closes once EVERY signatory has signed. | PARTIAL_ALLOWED = The request can close once the minimum required signatories have signed, even if others haven't yet.

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": "signature_request_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ids`	No
`page`	No
`size`	No
`sort`	No
`names`	No
`dateTo`	No
`hashes`	No
`creators`	No
`dateFrom`	No
`statuses`	No
`closeAtTo`	No
`providers`	No
`closeAtFrom`	No
`closeCondition`	No
`emailObservers`	No
`signatureTypes`	No
`emailSignatories`	No
`cancellationReasons`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`records`	No
`_metadata`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed8 schema fields changedv1.4.0Sep 14, 2026

removedInput schema / properties / closeAtFrom / anyOf

Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]

addedInput schema / properties / closeAtFrom / type
```
Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
```

removedInput schema / properties / closeAtTo / anyOf

Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]

addedInput schema / properties / closeAtTo / type
```
Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
```

removedInput schema / properties / dateFrom / anyOf

Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]

addedInput schema / properties / dateFrom / type
```
Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
```

removedInput schema / properties / dateTo / anyOf

Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]

addedInput schema / properties / dateTo / type
```
Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
```

First observedv1.3.1Aug 5, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate these. It adds value by explaining the closeCondition enum values (ALL_REQUIRED vs PARTIAL_ALLOWED), which is behavioral context for filtering. It doesn't contradict annotations and provides meaningful extra detail.

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 compact: two sentences that front-load the primary action ('List signature requests') and immediately give the key usage distinction. The close condition explanation is embedded efficiently without redundancy.

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?

Despite having an output schema, this is a high-complexity tool with 18 optional filters. The description covers only a few (closeCondition, name, status) and omits pagination, sorting, date ranges, creators, providers, and more. This is incomplete guidance for an agent to effectively use the tool's full filtering capability.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It only explains closeCondition in detail and mentions 'name or status' (likely mapping to names/statuses parameters). The other 15+ parameters (ids, page, size, sort, dateFrom, dateTo, creators, providers, etc.) are left entirely unexplained, so the description provides minimal help for most parameters.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List signature requests' – a specific verb and resource. It also differentiates from siblings by noting it's for finding a request when you don't have its id (e.g., by name or status), which contrasts with get_signature_request.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description gives an explicit usage scenario: 'Use to find a request when you don't have its id' – this implies when you do have the id, you'd use the get tool. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives like signature_request_full or signature_request_cancel, so it's clear but not exhaustive.

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

Deploy Server