SumoSign MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes, but create_envelope and create_envelope_from_template overlap in functionality (create_envelope also supports templates), potentially causing confusion for an agent.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case (e.g., create_envelope, download_signed_pdf). Minor exception like seed_starter_templates is still clear.
Tool Count5/5
15 tools cover the essential operations of an e-signature service without being excessive. Each tool serves a clear role in the envelope lifecycle.
Completeness4/5
The set covers the full envelope lifecycle from upload to download and audit. Minor gaps like the inability to update an envelope after creation are acceptable for a typical use case.
Average 3.6/5 across 15 of 15 tools scored. Lowest: 2.8/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 6 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must fully address behavioral traits. It implies a read-only operation but does not explicitly state idempotency, safety, or request limits. The listed statuses hint at output but lack comprehensive disclosure.
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?
Single front-loaded sentence with a useful list of statuses. Efficient and targeted, though the status list could be structured as part of the output description. No extraneous content.
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?
Given the simplicity of the tool (1 required param, no output schema), the description covers the main purpose and return content. However, it omits details like error scenarios, response format, or any behavioral notes, leaving some gaps.
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?
Schema coverage is 0%; description does not elaborate on envelopeId beyond what the schema provides (format: uuid). The description focuses on return values rather than parameter meaning, adding no extra semantic value.
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?
Description clearly states 'Get envelope status including per-recipient progress', specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_envelopes (list) and create_envelope (create), but does not explicitly contrast them.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No prerequisite conditions, exclusions, or context about when to prefer get_envelope over other tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description lacks behavioral details such as authentication requirements, error conditions, or size limits. 'Flattened, signed PDF' is vague without context.
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?
Single sentence with no wasted words. Front-loaded with verb and resource. However, it could add more context without becoming too long.
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?
For a simple two-parameter tool, the description is functional but missing important context like that the envelope must be completed. No output schema so no need to explain return values.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain the format or constraints of 'outputPath' (e.g., absolute path? writable?) or 'envelopeId' beyond it being a UUID.
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 action ('Download'), the resource ('flattened, signed PDF of a completed envelope'), and the destination ('to a local file path'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like download_certificate.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., download_certificate). No mention of prerequisites like envelope completion status.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations. The description does not disclose ordering, pagination, number of results, or side effects. For a read operation, basic behavioral info is missing.
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?
Single sentence, very concise. Could add a bit more without becoming verbose.
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?
No output schema or annotations. The description lacks information about return format, pagination, and limits. Incomplete for a list tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist, so schema covers everything. The description adds 'most recent' context, which is helpful. Baseline 4 for zero params.
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?
Clearly states the tool lists envelopes, specifying 'most recent'. This distinguishes from siblings like create_envelope or get_envelope, though scope could be sharper.
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 on when to use this vs. alternatives like search or get. No context on prerequisites or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It discloses the action (download to file path) and the data returned. However, it omits side effects (e.g., does it consume network, require auth, or mark as downloaded), format of output, and error conditions. Adequate but not comprehensive.
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?
Single sentence front-loading the purpose and content. No wasted words; the structure is efficient and directly informative.
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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks parameter explanations, output format details, and differentiation from sibling tools. While it covers the primary purpose, it leaves significant gaps for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but description adds no explanation for either parameter. envelopeId is not described beyond its UUID format; outputPath is only vaguely hinted as 'local file path'. With zero schema descriptions, the description must clarify parameters but fails to do so.
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?
Description explicitly states the action (download), resource (Certificate of Completion), and lists specific contents (recipients, timestamps, IPs, event timeline, document hash). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like download_signed_pdf and get_audit_trail by specifying the exact document being downloaded.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_audit_trail or download_signed_pdf. The description does not mention prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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. It mentions 'baked-in anchors' but does not disclose whether this is destructive (e.g., overwrites existing templates), if authentication is required, or any rate limits. For a mutation tool, more transparency is needed.
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 sentence of 14 words, front-loading the key purpose and examples. No unnecessary words; each part earns its place.
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?
The tool has no output schema and zero parameters. The description does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., template IDs or status) or any side effects. For a seeding action, the agent would benefit from knowing the outcome.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description does not need to explain parameters, and it adds value by naming the sample templates. Baseline 4 is appropriate.
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 tool seeds sample templates with specific examples (test envelope, simple NDA, one-page agreement) and mentions baked-in anchors, distinguishing it from create_template which likely creates blank templates. However, the verb 'seed' is somewhat vague and could be more explicit about action (e.g., 'create sample templates').
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_template or create_envelope_from_template. It is implied for testing or demo purposes, but no explicit context or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool performs text extraction (no OCR) and returns specific data structures, which adds value. However, it does not state whether the tool is read-only or has side effects, leaving some behavioral uncertainty.
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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the core function, return types, and a key technical detail (no OCR). It is well front-loaded and avoids unnecessary words.
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?
Given the tool has one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a fair overview but misses prerequisites (the document must be uploaded first) and does not detail the output structure beyond listing fields. This leaves some gaps for an agent to fully understand usage.
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?
The schema has one parameter (documentId) with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain that documentId refers to a previously uploaded document, nor does it specify how to obtain it. It adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, leaving the agent to infer the parameter's role from the phrase 'uploaded PDF'.
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 that the tool analyzes an uploaded PDF for field placement suggestions, specifying it uses text extraction (no OCR) and lists the return items. This gives a clear purpose, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'upload_document' or 'preview_envelope', though the function is distinct.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage before 'create_envelope' by mentioning the output is 'ready for create_envelope', but it lacks explicit context on when to use or not use this tool, and does not reference alternative tools for similar tasks.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description only states uploading a PDF and returning a document id. Does not disclose file size limits, supported formats beyond PDF, error handling, authentication requirements, or whether action is reversible. With zero annotation coverage, the description fails to adequately convey behavioral traits.
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?
Two sentences, no unnecessary words. Front-loaded with action and result. Efficient and scannable.
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?
Tool has one parameter, no output schema, no annotations. Description covers purpose and return value but lacks details on error scenarios, file limits, or integration with other tools. Adequate for a simple upload but could be more complete.
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% (filePath described as 'Absolute path to a PDF file'). Description adds minimal value beyond schema ('from a local file path'). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as schema already documents parameter clearly.
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?
Clearly states verb 'upload' and resource 'PDF from a local file path'. Specifies return value (document id) and its role in creating envelopes. Distinguishes easily from sibling tools that analyze documents, create/send envelopes, etc.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., analyze_document, create_envelope). Missing prerequisites, recommended order of operations, or conditions to avoid. Only a basic description of functionality.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It discloses key behaviors: voiding an envelope, revoking signing links, and audit-logging the reason. This provides sufficient transparency for a void operation.
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?
Three sentences, front-loaded with the main action ('Void an envelope'), no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.
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 purpose and key behaviors, but fails to explain required parameters or return values. Given no output schema and no annotations, it is minimally complete but has clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, yet the description does not explain the two required parameters (envelopeId and reason). It adds no meaning beyond the schema, leaving the agent to infer parameter roles from context.
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 action ('Void an envelope') and the resource ('envelope') with specific consequences ('Revokes all outstanding signing links'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_envelope or send_envelope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool should be used before completion ('before completion'), but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., canceling a draft). No exclusions or conditional scenarios are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description adds some behavioral context such as idempotent retries and draft creation. However, it does not disclose authorization requirements, error handling, or side effects beyond the file.
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 long, with the purpose front-loaded and no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.
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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It omits explanations for most parameters, return value, and error conditions, making it incomplete for safe autonomous use.
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?
Schema description coverage is only 14%, and the description adds minimal parameter info beyond mentioning recipients and idempotency. It does not explain templateId, name, routingMode, expiresInDays, or their constraints, leaving the agent underinformed.
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 it creates a draft envelope from a template, specifying that recipients are provided and fields are inherited. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_envelope and send_envelope.
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 implies usage when a template is available and only recipients need to be provided. It does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, but the context of sibling tools provides enough differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description covers basic behavior (creation, return of coordinates) but lacks disclosure of side effects, authentication needs, or constraints.
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?
Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the verb, no unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers core functionality but missing details on prerequisites, error conditions, or anchor format constraints.
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 has 0% description coverage. The description adds context about the PDF and anchors but does not map directly to the parameters (name, documentId).
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 it creates a reusable template from a PDF with text anchors and returns parsed coordinates, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_envelope_from_template.
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 implies usage when you have a PDF with anchors, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It describes the audit trail as 'append-only' and details the content (events with timestamps and actor attribution), effectively conveying the tool's read-only, immutable nature.
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?
Single, well-structured sentence with no wasted words. Conveys all necessary information efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description adequately explains the return content (events with timestamps and actor attribution). Slightly more detail on structure could improve it, but it is sufficient.
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?
Only one parameter, envelopeId (UUID), is self-explanatory from the schema. Description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, which has 0% description coverage. Score maintains baseline as parameter is simple.
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?
Clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'append-only audit trail for an envelope', explicitly differentiating it from sibling tools like 'get_envelope' which returns the envelope itself.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use or alternatives, but the context of retrieval is clear from the description. Lacks guidance on prerequisites or distinctions from similar tools like 'get_envelope', but it's not misleading.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It implies a read-only operation ('List') but does not disclose details like pagination, sorting, or authentication requirements. The brevity is acceptable for a zero-parameter tool, but more context (e.g., 'returns all templates') would improve transparency.
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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It is highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally complete for a simple list operation. However, it lacks context on how the result can be used (e.g., to select a template for envelope creation). Sibling tools exist, but the description does not connect to them.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (no properties). The description adds no parameter info, which is acceptable since none exist. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4.
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 verb 'List', resource 'reusable templates', and scope 'for the organization'. It is distinct from siblings like 'list_envelopes' (different resource) and 'create_template' (different action).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to list templates vs. list envelopes). The simplicity of listing implies it's the default action for browsing templates, but exclusions are absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the action (download PDF) and side effects (no consumption) but lacks details on permissions, state requirements, error handling, or file overwrite behavior.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the action, no filler. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description covers purpose, usage, and basic behavior. Missing details on error conditions and file handling, but adequate for a simple tool.
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 0%, so description compensates by naming envelopeId and outputPath implicitly. However, it does not add format, constraints, or writability requirements beyond the schema.
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 downloads a placement preview PDF of an envelope, specifying it contains dashed labeled boxes. It distinguishes from siblings like send_envelope and download_signed_pdf.
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?
Explicitly tells when to use it ('before send_envelope') and what it does not do ('no email is sent and no envelope is consumed'), providing clear context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the draft return status and the automatic idempotency key handling for safe retries. It does not mention permissions or potential side effects, but the core creation behavior is well covered.
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?
Two sentences, no redundancy. Each sentence adds essential value: purpose in first, behavioral note in second. Perfectly front-loaded and efficient.
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?
With 9 parameters and no output schema, the description is terse. It covers purpose and a key behavior but omits details on routing mode, expiration, or parameter interdependencies. Adequate but could be more helpful for such a complex tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is low (11%), but the description adds meaning by explaining the two modes and key parameters (templateId, recipients, inline fields). While individual parameters are not detailed, the high-level guidance compensates well.
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 creates a signing envelope via two distinct paths (from uploaded document with inline fields or from a template). It specifies the return status (draft) and distinguishes from siblings like create_envelope_from_template or send_envelope.
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 outlines when to use each path (inline fields vs template+recipients) and mentions the draft status implying it doesn't send automatically. However, it does not explicitly contrast with create_envelope_from_template or give a when-not-to-use, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It clearly states the 202 response with jobId, status, envelopeId; explains asynchronous token issuance and emails; mentions polling; and notes automatic idempotency-key handling. This is comprehensive for a send action.
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?
Two sentences with no filler. Every sentence adds value: first sentence states purpose and response, second explains async behavior and polling requirement. Efficient and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description adequately explains return values and async behavior. Covers the polling loop, signature limitation, and idempotency. For a tool with only two parameters, this is fully complete.
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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It implicitly covers envelopeId (the envelope to send) and explains idempotencyKey is sent automatically. However, explicit descriptions of each parameter's role are missing, leaving some interpretation to the schema alone.
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 starts with 'Send a draft envelope', which is a clear verb+resource pair. This distinguishes it from siblings like create_envelope (creation) and void_envelope (cancellation). The scope is specific and unambiguous.
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 explains that the tool sends a draft envelope asynchronously and advises polling get_envelope to confirm completion. It notes that only humans can sign, indicating a limitation. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or compare with alternatives like void_envelope.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![sumosign-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/meteordefect/sumosign-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/meteordefect/sumosign-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![sumosign-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/meteordefect/sumosign-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/meteordefect/sumosign-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/meteordefect/sumosign-mcp'

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