mcp-service-agreement
Server Configuration
Describes the environment variables required to run the server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Instructions
Guidance the server publishes about itself, which clients place ahead of the tool catalog so the model reads it before choosing anything.
This server publishes no instructions, or was last inspected before Glama recorded them.
Capabilities
Features and capabilities supported by this server
Protocol revision2025-11-25
| Capability | Details |
|---|---|
| tools | {
"listChanged": true
} |
Tools
Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| agreement_createA | Write a service agreement between a freelancer and a client before the work starts: the parties, the scope of services, the deliverables, the rate and payment terms, start and end dates, a termination notice period, a liability cap and the governing jurisdiction. Stores the agreement and returns it rendered as clean Markdown with a signature block. Free tier: 3 active agreements; expiring a finished one frees its slot. |
| agreement_getA | Read one service agreement in full by SA number or client name: parties, scope, deliverables, rate and payment terms, dates, termination, liability cap, jurisdiction, the clauses it carries, its status and its status history. Reads only. |
| agreement_listA | List service agreements newest first: parties, status, rate, dates and the clauses each carries. Filter by status and by client. An agreement is active until it is expired; the free tier holds 3 active agreements. |
| agreement_update_statusA | Move one agreement exactly one step: draft, sent, signed, expired, stamping the date and an optional note into its history. A skipped or backwards step is refused and nothing is written. Expiring a finished engagement frees a free-tier slot. |
| clause_libraryA | List the built-in clause library: intellectual property assignment, mutual confidentiality, late payment interest, kill fee and revision rounds. Each clause is a title plus a body text. Pass an agreement and, on Pro, every body comes back with that agreement's variables filled in. The free tier lists titles and summaries; the full texts are a Pro feature. |
| agreement_renderA | Render a service agreement ready to send and sign: the parties, the services, the deliverables, the payment terms, the term, termination, liability, jurisdiction, any library clauses it carries, and a signature block for both parties. Markdown, or self-contained HTML with print CSS that needs nothing from the network. HTML is a Pro feature. Writes nothing. |
| agreement_checklistA | The before-you-send-it checklist for one agreement: every missing field is listed, and terms whose absence cuts one way are flagged neutrally -- as written, what the gap means for both parties -- such as no termination clause or an uncapped liability. Reads only. |
| license_statusA | Report this server's licence state: product, tier free or pro, licence id, expiry, the key source and the upgrade URL. No arguments, no network. Explains a free-tier refusal; license_activate installs a key. |
| license_activateA | Activate a Pro key (MCPL1.xxx.yyy) from checkout: verified offline against a built-in public key, saved to your config file. A wrong, malformed or expired key is refused, unsaved. license_status reads it back. |
Prompts
Interactive templates invoked by user choice
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No prompts | |
Resources
Contextual data attached and managed by the client
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No resources | |
TDQS
Scored across 9 tools
The agreement tools are split by action (create/get/list/update_status/render/checklist) and the license tools are clearly separate, so an agent can usually pick the right one. The only mild ambiguity is that agreement_create and agreement_render both produce Markdown output, while agreement_checklist could be mistaken for a validation step rather than a read-only check.
Most tools follow an agreement_<verb pattern, and license_status/license_activate keep the same convention. The exceptions are agreement_checklist and clause_library, which use nouns instead of actions, creating a small but noticeable deviation.
Nine tools is well-scoped for a service-agreement server: CRUD-like agreement operations, rendering, checklist validation, a clause library, and license management all earn their place. The count feels intentional rather than bloated or sparse.
The set covers creating, reading, listing, status transitions, rendering, validation, clause lookup, and license activation, so the main lifecycle is represented. A clear gap is the absence of any way to update an agreement's content after creation; agents cannot fix a mistake or revise terms without creating a new agreement.