Skip to main content
Glama

ZapSign

by io.github.mcp-dir

zapsign_documents_write_add_extra_doc

Criar/alterar documentos de assinatura no ZapSign. Ações:

  • create (data): cria documento. Campos: name*, signers[]* (cada {name, email, phone_country, phone_number, auth_mode}); UMA fonte de arquivo: url_pdf | base64_pdf | url_docx | base64_docx | markdown_text; opc lang, disable_signer_emails, date_limit_to_sign, signature_order_active, folder_path, external_id.

  • create_from_template (data): cria via template. Campos: template_id*, signer_name*, data[]* (cada {de, para} substituindo {{VAR}}); opc signer_email, send_automatic_email, send_automatic_whatsapp, folder_path, external_id, lang.

  • update (doc_token, data): só com doc "em andamento". Campos: name, date_limit_to_sign, folder_path, extra_docs[].

  • delete (doc_token): soft-delete.

  • refuse (data): cancela/recusa. Campos: doc_token*, rejected_reason*, notify_signer.

  • place_signatures (doc_token, data): posiciona assinaturas por coordenadas. Campo: rubricas[] ({signer_token, page 0-based, relative_position_left/bottom, relative_size_x/y, type signature|visto}).

  • add_extra_doc (doc_token, data): anexa PDF extra. Campos: name*, url_pdf | base64_pdf.

[Flattened action: add_extra_doc]

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataNo
accountNo
doc_tokenNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) already indicate a write operation. The description adds only the basic behavior 'anexa PDF extra' but does not disclose side effects, auth requirements, error states, or document modification details. Minimal added value 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.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a long block listing seven actions, while the actual tool is only for add_extra_doc. The extraneous content bloats the text and detracts from the intended function. A focused description of the add_extra_doc action would be far more concise and effective.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite verbosity, the description provides enough parameter details for the primary action (name, url/base64) and confirms it's a write operation. However, it lacks context about the document state, required conditions, and the 'account' parameter's role. The tool is simple, so completeness is moderate but not poor.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It does specify 'doc_token, data' and that data must contain 'name*' and one of 'url_pdf | base64_pdf'. However, it omits the 'account' parameter entirely and leaves the data object schema loosely defined. Partial coverage, not comprehensive.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the core action: 'add_extra_doc (doc_token, data): anexa PDF extra' with required fields. It distinguishes this from sibling operations (create, update, delete) via the flattened action label. However, including a list of all other actions creates confusion, so it doesn't earn a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions other actions but doesn't state conditions like 'use when you need to attach an extra PDF to an existing document' or reference prerequisites (e.g., document in progress). Usage is only implied by the tool's name and the flattened action note.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All ZapSign toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

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.

Naming Consistency3/5

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.

Tool Count2/5

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.

Completeness4/5

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.

Resources