Skip to main content
Glama

ZapSign

by io.github.mcp-dir

zapsign_documents_write_refuse

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: refuse]

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

C2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) but say destructiveHint=false. The description's 'refuse (data): cancela/recusa' implies a state change, yet does not disclose side effects like signer notifications (notify_signer field) or reversibility, nor does it clarify that the refuse action is non-destructive per 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, dense block listing all write actions with detailed fields, burying the actual intended action (refuse) at the very end. This is a wall of text with no prioritization or structure, making it hard to quickly locate the relevant information.

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

Completeness2/5

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

While the refuse action is mentioned, the description lacks important context: no stated purpose for refusing, no mention of when refusal is appropriate, no side effects or return values (no output schema), and no distinction from similar write tools. It is incomplete for an agent to correctly use this tool.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does provide fields for refuse (doc_token, rejected_reason, notify_signer), but it mixes them with other actions' parameters, and the top-level 'doc_token' is duplicated. No explanation is given for 'account' or the structure of 'data' for refuse specifically.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description lists many actions (create, update, delete, refuse, etc.) without clearly indicating this tool is only for the 'refuse' action. Although it ends with '[Flattened action: refuse]', it is buried among many irrelevant actions, making the purpose ambiguous and potentially misleading for an agent.

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?

The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., zapsign_documents_write_create, zapsign_documents_write_delete). It does not mention that this tool is only for refusing documents and that other actions have their own tools.

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