Gerenciar usuários da conta ZapSign. Ações:
create_user (data): adiciona usuário. Campos: email*; opc role (member|admin|self_docs_limited), first_name, last_name, phone_country, phone_number.
delete_user (email): remove usuário (donos não podem ser removidos).
[Flattened action: create_user]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | ||
| No | |||
| account | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already state readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write nature is known. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as authentication requirements, potential failures (e.g., duplicate email), or side effects. The only extra info is about deletion (donos cannot be removed), which is irrelevant to the create action.
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?
The description is relatively concise and uses bullet points for structure. It is front-loaded with the overall purpose and then details actions. However, including both create_user and delete_user adds unnecessary length for a tool that is specifically for create_user, making it slightly less efficient than it could be.
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?
With 3 parameters, 0 required, a nested data object, and no output schema, the description leaves significant gaps. It does not clarify the structure and purpose of the 'data' and 'account' parameters, nor does it describe return values or error scenarios. For a write operation, this is insufficient for an agent to use correctly without additional assumptions.
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%, so the description must compensate. It does list the key fields for create_user (email required, optional role with enum values, and other optional fields), providing meaning beyond the schema. However, it fails to explain the top-level 'data', 'email', and 'account' properties, and the relationship between them is unclear.
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 clearly states the tool manages ZapSign users and lists create_user as the primary action (with flattened action noted). The verb+resource is specific ('adiciona usuário'), but the inclusion of delete_user in the same description introduces ambiguity and detracts from a focused purpose.
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?
No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions delete_user but does not clearly direct the agent to use a separate sibling tool for deletion. It lacks any context on prerequisites or scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage from the action list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a distinct name and purpose, with clear separation between read and write actions. However, the high number of similarly-prefixed tools (e.g., zapsign_documents_write_*) and the overlap between create and create_from_template could occasionally cause misselection.
Domain tools follow a consistent zapsign_<resource>_<action> pattern, with writes marked by _write_. However, platform-level tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace) break the pattern, and zapsign_list_accounts deviates from the resource-prefix convention.
35 tools is excessive, especially since many are flattened actions from a smaller set of underlying operations. The inclusion of non-domain platform tools further inflates the count, making the tool list feel heavy and harder to navigate.
The core ZapSign domain is well covered: documents, signers, templates, webhooks, checks, and account management all have CRUD-like operations. Minor gaps exist, such as no listing endpoint for checks and no webhook list (due to API limitations), but these are not fatal for typical workflows.