anvil_get_etch_packetFetch an Etch e-signature packet by eid: its status, details URL, document group, and every signer (eid, aliasId, name, email, status, routing order). Use this to check signature progress. GraphQL query: etchPacket.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| eid | Yes | The Etch packet eid (returned by anvil_create_etch_packet). |
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 provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'Fetch' and 'check signature progress', avoiding contradictions. It adds details on what the response contains (status, details URL, signers), which is valuable 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with no waste. It front-loads the action and lists key outputs efficiently.
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 single-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description provides clear purpose, usage context, and content of response, making it complete.
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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter eid, which is described in the schema as 'The Etch packet eid (returned by anvil_create_etch_packet).' The description does not add further meaning, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 'Fetch an Etch e-signature packet by eid' and lists the specific fields returned, differentiating it from sibling tools like anvil_create_etch_packet.
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 explicitly says 'Use this to check signature progress', providing clear context for when to use. It does not mention when not to use or alternatives, but the guidance is sufficient.
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 targets a distinct function: user info, PDF creation/filling, e-signature management, and workflow queries. No two tools have overlapping purposes; even the two PDF tools (fill_pdf vs generate_pdf) are clearly separated by input type.
All tools use the 'anvil_' prefix followed by verb_noun in snake_case (e.g., create_etch_packet, get_cast). The pattern is perfectly consistent across all 10 tools.
10 tools cover the major Anvil capabilities (PDF, e-sign, organization, workflows) without unnecessary redundancy. The count is well-scoped for the server's purpose.
The set lacks list/update/delete operations for several resources (e.g., no list_casts, no update_etch_packet). While key create and get operations are present, agents may need to work around missing CRUD coverage.