Skip to main content
Glama

Replace invite recipient

update_invite_recipient
Destructive

Update a pending signing invite by replacing the current recipient with a new email address for a document or document group.

Instructions

Replace the signing recipient on a pending field invite for a document or document group. Finds the pending invite for the current signer and replaces it with a new signer. For documents: deletes the old invite, creates a replacement, and triggers sending. For document groups: updates the pending step(s) with the new signer information. Only field invites are supported — freeform and embedded invites cannot be updated. The entity's state may have changed in the SignNow editor since you last looked — re-read the current state first and build this request from the current roles/recipients, not from earlier in the conversation.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
roleNoRole name to match (for multi-role documents). If omitted, matches any role.
entity_idYesID of the document or document group
new_emailYesEmail address of the new signer
entity_typeNoType of entity: 'document' or 'document_group' (optional). Auto-detected if not provided (tries document_group first). Pass explicitly to save one API call.
current_emailYesEmail address of the current signer to replace

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
statusYesResult status: 'replaced' (invite recipient was replaced and resent), 'no_pending_invite' (no pending/created invite found for current_email), 'unsupported_invite_type' (freeform or embedded invites cannot be updated)
entity_idYesDocument or document group ID
new_emailYesEmail address of the new signer
entity_typeYesEntity type: 'document' or 'document_group'
new_invite_idNoID of the newly created invite (populated only when status is 'replaced')
updated_stepsNoList of step IDs that were updated (populated only for document_group with status 'replaced')
previous_emailYesEmail address of the replaced signer
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.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

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