shiply

Get the signed contract PDF (base64)

contract_pdf

Read-only

Get the signed contract PDF as a base64-encoded download. PDF includes the contract, signature certificate, and any signed amendments. Returns { filename, contentType, base64 }. Errors with conflict:contract_not_signed if the parent contract has not been signed yet.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`contractId`	Yes	signed contract id (parent or amendment) to render as PDF

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

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

Changed2 schema fields changedJun 23, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / contractId / description

Added value: +"signed contract id (parent or amendment) to render as PDF"

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "result": {}
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "result"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedJun 23, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only. The description adds detail about the PDF content (contract, signature, amendments) and the return format, as well as the specific error case. This goes 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

Three sentences, no wasted words. Each sentence adds value: purpose/output format, content details, error condition. Front-loaded with main action.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With an output schema present, the description sufficiently covers behavior, return structure, and a key error. Minor omission of other potential errors (e.g., invalid ID), but adequate for a simple tool.

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 100% and the description does not add significant new semantics beyond the schema's description of contractId as 'signed contract id'. Baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool retrieves a signed contract PDF as base64, specifying the resource (signed contract PDF) and verb (get). It distinguishes from sibling tools like contract_status or contract_draft by focusing on PDF download.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage for signed contracts via the error condition, but does not explicitly state when to use over alternatives like contract_status. No direct comparison with siblings is provided.

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

All shiply tools Inspect

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

B3.4/5.0

Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have overlapping purposes (e.g., add_domain, add_subdomain, add_custom_domain, add_sending_domain) or similar names like check_domain and check_custom_domain, which can confuse an agent. While descriptions help, the sheer number of closely related tools makes it difficult to consistently select the correct one.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern, but there are exceptions like 'read_thread' (instead of get_thread) and 'mark_thread_read' (verb_noun_verb). Prefixes like 'data_' are used inconsistently with other tools, but overall the naming is still readable.

Tool Count1/5

With 103 tools, the server is extremely bloated. Even for a comprehensive platform, this count overwhelms any agent and makes the tool surface difficult to navigate. Many tools could be merged or are too granular.

Completeness4/5

The toolset covers a wide range of operations across sites, domains, email, marketplace, projects, contracts, and functions. While some updates (e.g., general contract editing) are missing, the surface is mostly comprehensive for the domain.

Resources

Need Help?