SignNow MCP Server

Official

by signnow

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Hybrid

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v2.7.1
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes, but the abundance of embedded invite/editor/sending variants (each with a _from_template counterpart) can cause confusion despite detailed descriptions. An agent might struggle to pick the right one without careful reading.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern. Verbs like cancel, create, get, list, rename, send, update, upload, view are used uniformly, and suffixes like _from_template are applied systematically.
Tool Count4/5
25 tools is on the higher side but justified by the broad scope of document signing workflows (upload, invite, template, contact management, skills). It's not excessive for a comprehensive API.
Completeness3/5
Covers most lifecycle operations, but notably missing a delete/remove tool for documents, templates, or groups. Also, update_document_fields only handles text fields, leaving other field types unaddressed.
Average 4.1/5 across 22 of 25 tools scored. Lowest: 3.3/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 25 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on July 27, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is failing
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.
This repository includes a glama.json configuration file.
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.
View related servers

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?
The description adds no behavioral details beyond what annotations provide. While annotations indicate non-destructive (destructiveHint=false) and open world (openWorldHint=true), the description does not elaborate on aspects like creation behavior, restrictions, or side effects.
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, well-structured sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. No unnecessary words or redundancy.
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 simple parameter structure, existing annotations, and output schema, the description covers the basic purpose but lacks usage guidelines and deeper behavioral context. It is adequate but not comprehensive.
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% with each parameter described. The description summarizes the entity types (template/template_group) and the resulting document/group but does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema itself. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 (create) and the resource (document or document group) from a template or template group. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_embedded_editor_from_template which focus on embedded editors rather than direct document creation.
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?
The description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative tools like send_invite_from_template or create_embedded_editor_from_template. No conditions or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent without context for selection.
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?
The description implies a read-only operation ('Get'), but annotations set readOnlyHint=false, creating a contradiction. No additional behavioral context (e.g., link expiration, authentication needs) is provided beyond the annotations.
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, efficient sentence that is front-loaded with the core action. Every word is necessary.
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 presence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. However, it could be more informative about the nature of the download link (e.g., temporary, requires auth), especially with openWorldHint=true.
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 100%, so the schema already fully describes both parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what is in 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 gets a download link for a document or document group, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_document' and 'get_signing_link'.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The parameter description provides some contextual help for entity_type, but no overall usage context.
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?
Annotations indicate mutation (readOnlyHint=false) but no destructive or idempotent hints. The description adds minimal behavioral context: it sends a reminder. It does not disclose that reminders reuse the original email template (information is in schema descriptions but not in the description itself), nor does it mention side effects or rate limits.
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, no wasted words. Directly communicates the tool's purpose without extraneous information.
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 a simple tool but lacks explanation of return values (though output schema exists) and does not mention default behavior (reminding all pending signers) or auto-detection of entity_type. It is minimally 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 100% with all parameters described. The description does not add extra parameter meaning; it only states the overall action. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents semantics.
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 explicitly states the verb 'send' and the resource 'signing reminder to pending signers on a document or document group'. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like 'send_invite' (initial invitation) by focusing on reminders for pending signers.
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 mentions 'pending signers' which implies not for completed documents, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'cancel_invite' or 'send_invite'. No when-not or exclusions are stated.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description does not contradict these and adds that it is a read operation. However, it does not disclose additional behavior like what happens if the entity is not found or if the user lacks permissions. Fairly standard for a simple getter.
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 single-sentence description is concise and front-loaded. It could include a brief note about the return format or usage context without becoming verbose.
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 has only two parameters, a clear purpose, and an output schema (to explain return values), the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the essential action and provides helpful parameter guidance.
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 input schema covers 100% of parameters. The description adds value beyond the schema, especially for entity_type: it warns about knowing the type and suggests trying a different type if not found. This guidance aids the agent beyond the enum options.
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 retrieves a signing link for a document or document group. The verb 'get' and the resource 'signing link' are specific. While it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_document' or 'get_document_download_link', the purpose is unambiguous.
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 and parameter hints provide minimal guidance. The entity_type parameter includes a note suggesting to try a different type if not found, which is helpful. However, there is no explicit statement about when to use this tool versus alternatives or prerequisites (e.g., entity must exist).
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?
Annotations already indicate the tool is non-destructive and idempotent. The description adds the list of supported entity types but no additional behavioral context (e.g., effects on related entities, user permissions required).
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, direct, no unnecessary words. Efficiently communicates the tool's action and scope.
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?
For a simple rename operation with an output schema (assumed), the description covers the essential. However, it could note that renaming does not affect signing links or other references, but overall 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?
Input schema descriptions are complete (100% coverage). The description adds the list of entity types, which is already in the schema's enum. No additional constraints on new_name (e.g., length, format) are provided.
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 'Rename' and the resources: document, document group, template, or template group. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like send_invite or update_document_fields.
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 vs alternatives. For instance, there is no mention of when renaming is appropriate or if there are constraints like 'cannot rename a document that is in a signing process'.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds that the list is 'simplified' with 'basic information', which is useful but not extensive. No contradiction.
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, no unnecessary words, front-loaded. Efficiently conveys the core purpose.
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's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It does not mention pagination (though schema does) or the scope of data returned (e.g., all templates with pagination).
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 100%, and the schema already fully describes limit and offset. The description does not add extra meaning beyond what is in the schema, so baseline of 3 applies.
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 returns a simplified list of templates and template groups. The verb 'Get' and specific resource 'templates and template groups' distinguish it from sibling tools like list_documents or create_template.
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 (e.g., list_documents for documents). Given many sibling tools, explicit context or exclusions are missing.
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?
Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds behavioral context: self_sign resolves the current user, the entity state may have changed, and the tool may create documents from templates. This adds value beyond annotations without contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is fairly long and contains some redundancy (e.g., auto-detection mentioned twice). It is front-loaded with the main purpose but could be more concise without losing necessary detail.
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 has 6 parameters, 1 required, and an output schema, the description covers entity types, self_sign, preview_was_shown workflow, and warns about stale state. It provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool effectively.
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 100% (baseline 3). The description adds functional context: role is required for field invites but omitted for freeform; orders are required unless self_sign; preview_was_shown describes a workflow. This adds meaning beyond the schema.
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 sends an invite to sign a document, document group, template, or template group. It distinguishes between field and freeform invites and mentions auto-detection. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like create_embedded_invite or send_invite_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 Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides guidance on when to use self_sign, when to omit role, and warns about stale entity state. It suggests re-reading the entity state first. However, it lacks explicit comparisons with sibling tools to guide choice between them.
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?
Description adds important behavioral context beyond annotations: the auto-creation of documents/groups when using templates or template groups. Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which align with the create operation. No contradictions.
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 purpose, no redundant information. Every sentence is informative and concise.
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?
Covers core functionality and special behavior for templates. Given an output schema exists for return values, the description is mostly complete. Could mention prerequisites or error handling but not required for a clear tool understanding.
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?
Input schema provides 100% coverage for all 6 parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, only explaining that the 'name' parameter is used when entity_type is template. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 tool creates an embedded editor for editing documents, document groups, templates, or template groups. Also explains the distinct behavior for templates (auto-creates a document first), which differentiates from sibling tools like create_embedded_editor_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 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., create_embedded_editor_from_template, create_embedded_invite). The description does not mention when-not-to-use or provide context for tool selection.
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?
Annotations already indicate non-destructive mutation. The description adds no further behavioral context, such as whether the original entity is preserved or modified, which would be helpful.
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 core purpose with no extraneous information.
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 presence of an output schema and annotations, the description is mostly complete. However, it omits details about effects on the original entity, which would improve completeness.
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%, so the schema already documents parameters well. The tool description adds minimal reinforcement like 'existing document or document group' but does not significantly enhance understanding 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 verb 'convert' and the resource 'existing document or document group' into a 'reusable template', which distinguishes it from sibling tools that create from templates or perform other actions.
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 does not explicitly compare with sibling tools or specify when not to use this tool. It implies a prerequisite (existing document/group) but lacks guidance on alternative tools like create_from_template.
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?
Annotations already indicate mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructiveness. Description adds 'immediately' for link creation but lacks details on side effects like template consumption or account impact. Adequate given annotations.
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 wasted words, front-loaded with core action. Perfectly concise.
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?
Covers purpose and scope well; output schema handles return info. Could mention error conditions or prerequisites, but sufficient for an agent with schema and annotations.
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 100% and descriptions are clear. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 document/group and an embedded editor link from a template/group, with explicit 'ONLY for templates and template groups' distinguishing it from siblings like create_embedded_editor.
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?
States tool is only for templates/template groups, giving clear context. Does not explicitly compare to alternatives like create_embedded_editor or create_from_template, but the 'ONLY' implies exclusion.
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?
Annotations already indicate non-read-only and non-destructive traits. The description adds important behavioral details: for templates/template groups, it automatically creates a document/group first, and in compatible clients the UI renders inline. No contradictions with annotations.
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, front-loading the purpose. Every sentence provides value: the first defines the core action, the second adds essential behavioral context. No filler or redundancy.
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 7 parameters, output schema existence, and annotations, the description covers the main purpose and key behaviors. It could mention prerequisites (e.g., entity must exist) or link details, but the existing content is reasonably complete for a tool with good schema coverage.
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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema; it only implicitly relates to the 'name' parameter via the auto-creation mention. The enum values for 'type' are already in 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 verb 'Create' and the resource 'embedded sending', and specifies the supported entity types: document, document group, template, template group. It also distinguishes behavior for templates by noting auto-creation of a document first. This level of specificity helps differentiate from sibling tools.
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 context on when to use the tool (for managing, editing, or sending invites) and mentions inline rendering. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative sibling tools, such as create_embedded_sending_from_template, despite the many related tools.
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?
Annotations already indicate non-readOnly and non-idempotent behavior. The description adds that the tool creates both a document/group and an invite, but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as required permissions, error conditions, or side effects beyond creation. This is adequate given the annotation context.
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 consists of two sentences, no redundancy, and immediately conveys the core functionality and restriction. Every word earns its place.
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?
With a complex multi-step operation (create from template + embedded invite) and the presence of sibling tools for individual steps, the description clearly defines the scope. An output schema exists (not shown but indicated), so return value explanation is unnecessary.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for all parameters, so the schema already provides meaning. The description does not add further parameter-specific guidance, meeting the baseline for high coverage.
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 ('Create a document or document group from a template or template group, then create an embedded signing invite immediately') and explicitly restricts usage to templates and template groups, distinguishing it from sibling tools that operate on documents or invites separately.
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 explicitly states the tool is ONLY for templates and template groups, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use separate sibling tools (e.g., create_from_template + create_embedded_invite) instead of this combined tool, but the presence of sibling names implies the distinction.
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?
Annotations indicate destructive hint and idempotent hint. The description adds that all active invites are cancelled and warns about state changes, providing behavioral context beyond annotations.
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: first states the action, second provides a crucial caution. No redundant information, efficiently conveyed.
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?
The description covers the tool's purpose, scope (document/group), and a practical caution about state staleness. Output schema exists, so return values are covered. Could potentially mention idempotency, but annotations already provide that.
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%, so the schema already documents parameters. The description does not add further parameter semantics, maintaining the baseline score.
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 cancels active signing invites on a document or document group. The verb 'cancel' and resource 'signing invites' are specific, and the tool is distinct from sibling tools like send_invite or get_invite_status.
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 advises to re-read the current state before cancelling, implying when to use this tool cautiously. It provides context about potential stale state but does not explicitly list when not to use or alternatives.
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?
Discloses the creation and immediate link generation behavior, which aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint=false). It adds context beyond annotations but could mention potential side effects like link expiration.
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 short sentences, no unnecessary words. Purpose and constraint are front-loaded.
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?
With 7 parameters, an output schema, and high schema coverage, the description covers the core goal. Minor missing context about the 'type' parameter's effect, but schema fills that gap.
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 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description does not add significant new information beyond what is in 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 it creates a document/group from a template/group and immediately creates an embedded sending link. The phrase 'ONLY for templates and template groups' distinguishes it from siblings like create_embedded_sending.
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?
Explicitly states the tool is only for templates and template groups, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like create_embedded_sending or create_from_template.
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?
The description does not contradict annotations; it supplements them with behavioral details (simplified list, unified format, status filtering). Although it doesn't cover all traits (e.g., pagination is implied by parameters), it provides sufficient context for an agent to understand the tool's 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?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and includes a concrete usage example. Every sentence earns its place; no unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
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?
The description covers the main purpose and provides concrete usage examples (status and expired_filter). Since the output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return fields. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand the tool's basic use case, though it omits mention of optional parameters like sorting and folder filtering, which are adequately described in the schema.
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?
The input schema already provides descriptions for all 7 parameters (100% coverage), detailing their types, defaults, and allowed values. The description does not add substantial new information about the parameters beyond reinforcing the filtering examples. Thus, it meets the baseline of 3.
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 explicitly states the tool retrieves a simplified list of documents and document groups, mentions the unified format, and gives concrete usage examples (status filtering). It is distinct from sibling tools which are about specific actions like creating, sending, updating documents.
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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (to fetch lists by status, e.g., waiting-for-me, expired) but does not explicitly state when alternative tools like `get_document` or `view_document` might be more appropriate. The context is sufficient to guide usage, but lacks explicit exclusion criteria.
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?
The description confirms mutation (consistent with annotations) and adds a specific constraint not covered by annotations. Annotations already provide safety profile, so the description adds value without contradiction.
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?
A single sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and constraints. No wasted 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 the presence of an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and constraints. It is complete for the complexity level.
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?
With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already explains the update_requests structure in detail. The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics beyond stating the action and scope, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 'update', the resource 'text fields', and the scope 'multiple documents' with explicit exclusion of 'document groups', fully distinguishing from sibling tools.
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?
It provides clear direction by stating that only individual documents are supported, not groups, guiding the agent on when to use this tool. No explicit alternatives are named, but the exclusion is helpful.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable context that it always returns the current server-side state and suggests re-fetching after edits, which goes beyond what annotations provide.
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: the first states the core purpose, the second adds behavioral nuance. No redundant or extraneous information.
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 the presence of an output schema, annotations, and full parameter coverage, the description adequately covers the tool's behavior. It explains the refresh behavior and entity types, making it complete for a read-only retrieval 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 has 100% description coverage with clear parameter descriptions. The description reinforces that entity_id refers to various entity types and mentions field values, but does not add substantive new details 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 it retrieves full information for documents, templates, template groups, or document groups, including field values. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_documents (list vs. get) and get_document_download_link (different purpose).
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?
It advises calling the tool again after editing to pick up changes, providing clear usage context. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or comparisons to alternatives like view_document or get_invite_status.
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?
Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true. Description adds details: for documents, deletes old invite and creates new; for groups, updates pending steps. Also warns about stale state, going beyond annotations.
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?
Description is informative but moderately long. It front-loads the main action and uses clear structure, though could be slightly more concise.
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?
Description covers behavior for both document types and includes a warning about state changes. With an output schema present, return values are documented elsewhere. Adequately complete for the tool's complexity.
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 100% with parameter descriptions. Description adds context on role matching and auto-detection of entity_type, improving understanding beyond 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?
Description clearly states it replaces a signing recipient on a pending field invite for a document or document group. It distinguishes from siblings like cancel_invite or send_invite by specifying the replace action.
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?
Description provides clear context: only field invites are supported, freeform/embedded cannot be updated. It advises re-reading state before use. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for other scenarios.
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?
The description openly discloses that the tool sends an invite immediately after creating the document, aligning with the annotations (readOnlyHint=false). It does not contradict annotations, and provides useful behavioral insight beyond what annotations convey.
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 extremely concise with only two sentences. The first sentence covers the entire action, and the second adds a critical restriction. No unnecessary words or repetition.
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 presence of an output schema (context says has output schema: true) and 100% schema description coverage, the description adequately covers the main action and scope. It could mention prerequisites or error conditions (e.g., template must exist) for full completeness, but it is sufficient for an agent.
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 schema provides 100% description coverage for all 4 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by reinforcing that the tool works only with templates/template groups, which helps clarify the entity_type parameter. However, it does not add new parameter-specific details.
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 that it creates a document or document group from a template/template group and immediately sends a signing invite. It explicitly distinguishes itself by noting that it is ONLY for templates and template groups, which differentiates it from sibling tools like send_invite or create_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 provides strong guidance by stating the tool is only for templates and template groups, implying when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives for non-template documents, which would improve clarity further.
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?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint. The description adds value by detailing internal logic: preferring field invites when both exist, and adapting behavior for freeform document groups to include signer emails. No contradictions with annotations.
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 four sentences, each conveying essential information without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently explains nuances and behavior.
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 the tool's complexity (two entity types, invite modes) and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers key behavioral aspects: invite mode preference, freeform group handling, and returned modes. No apparent gaps for a read-only 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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds practical guidance for entity_type, advising to ensure correct type and suggesting trying alternatives if not found, which aids correct invocation beyond schema details.
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 retrieves invite status for a document or document group, distinguishing it from related tools like 'send_invite' or 'cancel_invite'. It further clarifies support for field and freeform invites, and notes the return of invite_mode, making the purpose 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 implicitly guides usage by focusing on reading invite status, contrasting with sibling tools that create or modify invites. It explains preferences (field over freeform) and behavior for freeform groups, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or list alternatives.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. Description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations provide, but does not contradict them.
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 wasted words: first states purpose, second provides usage guidance. Efficient and well-structured.
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 the tool's simplicity (2 optional params, output schema exists), the description fully covers behavior and integration with sibling tool, making it complete for agent invocation.
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 covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). Description adds meaning by specifying partial match behavior and default value effect, enhancing understanding beyond 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 searches CRM contacts by name, email, or phone, and distinguishes it from sibling send_invite by specifying its use to resolve email addresses.
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 states when to use the tool ('before send_invite to resolve a recipient's email address by their name'), providing clear context and alternative.
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?
The description adds significant context beyond annotations: it discloses that for templates and template groups, it automatically creates a document/group first. The warning about stale state is also valuable. Annotations already indicate destructive and non-idempotent behavior, and the description aligns perfectly without contradiction.
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 with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the core purpose and follows with a critical caution. Every sentence earns its place.
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 complexity (4 parameters, multiple entity types, output schema exists), the description covers the essential behaviors and adds a state-reading warning. It does not explain error conditions or the output format, but the output schema presumably handles that. Slightly incomplete for a full picture, but adequate.
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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that the 'name' parameter is only used when entity_type is template or template_group, and that 'entity_type' is auto-detected if not provided. This clarifies parameter usage beyond the schema descriptions.
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 an embedded invite for signing, and specifies the supported entity types (document, document group, template, template group). It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning the auto-creation behavior for templates, which is unique to this tool.
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 provides a crucial guideline: re-read the current state before building the request to avoid using stale roles/fields. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or directly compare with siblings like create_embedded_invite_from_template.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint. The description adds context about the signnow101 prerequisite and the difference between listing and reading full body. No contradictions.
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 concise sentences: purpose, dual modes, critical prerequisite. No wasted words. Front-loaded with the action.
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?
For a simple 1-param tool with output schema, the description covers usage and a key workflow dependency. Could mention what happens on invalid skill_name, but not necessary given output schema likely handles errors.
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 100% and description reinforces it. Adds that providing skill_name reads the 'full skill body', which is not in schema. Also gives an example (signnow101). Adds moderate value beyond 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?
Clearly states it queries the SignNow skill library, distinguishes listing vs reading modes, and importantly positions it as a prerequisite by directing the agent to load signnow101 before any action. Differentiates from sibling tools which are all actual SignNow actions.
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 explains two usage modes (omit vs provide skill_name) and gives a critical workflow rule: load signnow101 before any SignNow action. This provides clear when and why to use this tool.
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?
The description goes well beyond the annotations (which only mark readOnlyHint and destructiveHint as false). It discloses supported file types, maximum file size, filename behavior for URL uploads, and the structure of the success response (next_steps, agent_guidance). This fully informs the agent of important 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?
The description is concise (approximately 5 sentences) with no filler. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by constraints, then post-upload behavior. Every sentence contributes essential information.
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 the tool's complexity (three input methods, size limits, filename handling, and structured return values), the description covers all critical aspects. The existence of an output schema is noted, so the description does not need to detail return fields; it correctly highlights the key post-upload guidance behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Every parameter in the input schema has a schema description, but the tool description adds further meaning: it explains that resource_uri is preferred when supported, clarifies the path safety constraint for file_path (SAFE_UPLOAD_BASE), and notes when filename is required. This adds significant value beyond 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 clearly states the action ('Upload a document to SignNow') and specifies the three methods of input (local file path, public URL, or MCP resource attachment). It is a specific verb+resource that differentiates from sibling tools which focus on invites, templates, and other operations.
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 provides clear guidance on when to use this tool (to upload a document) and crucially explains what to do after success: present next_steps options to the user and wait for a decision before calling any follow-up tool. It covers constraints like file types, max size, and a note about URL filename inference, but does not explicitly list when not to use it vs alternatives; however, the context of sibling tools makes this unnecessary.
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?
Disclosures match annotations (readOnlyHint). Adds behavioral details: auto-detection of entity_type, default link expiration, inline vs clickable rendering. No contradictions.
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, each adding value. No redundant information. Front-loaded with purpose, then workflow, then behavior.
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?
With output schema present and high schema coverage, the description is complete. Covers purpose, usage, parameters, and rendering behavior. Well-differentiated from sibling tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%. Description adds significant context: how to obtain entity_id, auto-detection logic for entity_type, and default expiration value. Goes beyond schema definition.
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 ('generate'), resource ('read-only embedded view link'), and scope ('document or document group'). Differentiates from siblings by focusing on embedding and read-only access.
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?
Explicitly provides workflow: first call list_documents/list_templates to find entity by name, then pass entity_id. Explains rendering behavior in different clients. Does not explicitly say when not to use, but context is clear.
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:

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

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

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

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/signnow/sn-mcp-server'

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