Retrieve a signature request with its local OP4 envelope and event trail. If the request is overdue, its expiry is saved first (lazy sweep).
Eine Signaturanfrage mit ihrem lokalen Artefakt (the OP4 envelope incl. the event trail). Reading an overdue open request persists its expiry first (lazy sweep, no background daemon in the OSS core).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| workspaceId | Yes | ||
| signRequestId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already marks it as read-only, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: reading an overdue open request triggers a lazy sweep that persists its expiry, and notes there is no background daemon in the OSS core. This goes beyond what annotations provide and sets correct expectations about side effects despite the read-only hint.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded and the important behavioral caveat about the lazy sweep is included. The German/English mix is slightly awkward but does not waste words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple 2-parameter get operation with a readOnly annotation, the description is close to sufficient. It lacks any indication of the return structure (the OP4 envelope and event trail are named but not described), and the parameter semantics are left entirely to the schema. The behavioral note is useful but the description still relies on the tool name for most of the meaning.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain what workspaceId or signRequestId mean beyond their obvious names. For a get-by-id operation these parameter names are fairly self-explanatory, but the description adds no detail about formats, required scoping, or how they relate to the returned artifact.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names the resource ('Signaturanfrage' / sign request) and the specific verb ('get' / reading), and mentions it returns the local artifact including the OP4 envelope and event trail. It is reasonably distinct from sibling sign_requests_* tools, though the mixed German/English wording ('Signaturanfrage' with English parenthetical) adds some ambiguity about what exactly is returned.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains a specific side effect when reading an overdue open request (lazy sweep persists expiry first), which serves as an implicit warning about when to use this tool. It does not explicitly state when to choose this over sign_requests_list or sign_requests_create, nor does it provide exclusions or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.