Skip to main content
Glama

Replace invite recipient

update_invite_recipient
Destructive

Replace the current signer on a pending field invite with a new signer by providing the entity ID, current email, and new email. Supports both documents and document groups.

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.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
entity_idYesID of the document or document group
current_emailYesEmail address of the current signer to replace
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.
roleNoRole name to match (for multi-role documents). If omitted, matches any role.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
entity_idYesDocument or document group ID
entity_typeYesEntity type: 'document' or 'document_group'
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)
new_invite_idNoID of the newly created invite (populated only when status is 'replaced')
previous_emailYesEmail address of the replaced signer
new_emailYesEmail address of the new signer
updated_stepsNoList of step IDs that were updated (populated only for document_group with status 'replaced')
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, and the description elaborates on the destructive nature: for documents it deletes old invite and creates replacement triggering sending; for document groups it updates pending steps. No contradictions; adds necessary 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 5 sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: purpose, behavioral breakdown (documents vs groups), and restrictions. No redundant information; front-loaded with the key action.

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?

The description covers the core functionality, entity type differences, supported invite types, and restrictions. Given the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description does not need to explain return values. It is complete for understanding when and how to use the 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage of parameter descriptions. The description adds context about entity_type auto-detection and role matching, which goes beyond the schema. However, it does not detail each parameter, but the high schema coverage justifies a score above 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 clearly states the tool replaces a signing recipient on a pending field invite, with distinct behavior for documents vs document groups. It explicitly distinguishes from unsupported invite types (freeform, embedded), differentiating it from siblings like send_invite or cancel_invite.

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 specifies when to use the tool (replace signer on a pending field invite) and provides restrictions (only field invites supported). It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the context implies its unique role among invite-manipulation tools.

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