Templates (modelos DOCX) no ZapSign (leitura). Ações: list (page — 20/página); get (template_token — inclui inputs[] das variáveis {{VAR}}).
[Flattened action: get]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| account | No | ||
| template_token | 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 declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds that it's a 'leitura' (read) operation and mentions pagination (20 per page) for list action. However, it does not describe behavior of the get action (e.g., errors, relationships) beyond including inputs[] of variables. The description does not contradict annotations; it aligns with read-only, idempotent nature.
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 concise, with a short introductory sentence and a bullet list of actions. It uses a compact format that is easy to scan. However, the phrase '[Flattened action: get]' is somewhat cryptic and may add unnecessary confusion, but overall it is efficient.
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?
Given the tool has 3 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is insufficient to fully understand how to use the tool. It does not explain the response format for get, nor does it clarify the purpose of the 'account' parameter. The presence of sibling tools like zapsign_templates_list and zapsign_templates_write_* increases the need for clarity on when this specific tool is used, which is only partially provided.
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 mentions page (for list) and template_token (for get), but does not explain the 'account' parameter at all. The description does not provide complete semantics for all three parameters; account is missing entirely. This is a gap since the schema only provides type 'string' for account without further context.
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 this tool handles templates (DOCX models) in ZapSign, with actions list and get. The flattened action is 'get', which matches the tool name 'zapsign_templates_get'. However, the description mixes two actions (list and get) and mentions the flattened action, which might be confusing but still clearly indicates the purpose of retrieving template details.
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 lists the actions and their parameters (page for list, template_token for get), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like zapsign_templates_list. It implies that 'get' is the intended action but doesn't provide clear guidance on when to choose this tool over sibling tools.
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.