{"passport":{"unfragile":{"@version":"1.0","version":"2026-05","artifact":{"id":"awesome-esignatures","slug":"esignatures","name":"eSignatures","type":"mcp","url":"https://github.com/esignaturescom/mcp-server-esignatures","page_url":"https://unfragile.ai/esignatures","categories":["mcp-servers"],"tags":[],"pricing":{"model":"open_source","free":true,"starting_price":null},"status":"active","verified":false},"capabilities":[{"id":"awesome-esignatures__cap_0","uri":"capability://tool.use.integration.mcp.based.contract.template.management.with.schema.driven.operations","name":"mcp-based contract template management with schema-driven operations","description":"Exposes contract and template management through the Model Context Protocol (MCP) standard, enabling LLM agents and tools to programmatically create, retrieve, update, and delete contract templates via standardized JSON-RPC 2.0 message handlers. Implements resource-based routing with typed input/output schemas that allow AI systems to understand available operations and their parameters without custom integration code.","intents":["I want my AI agent to manage contract templates without writing custom API client code","I need to expose contract operations to Claude or other MCP-compatible LLMs","I want to standardize how multiple AI tools interact with contract management"],"best_for":["AI agent developers building contract automation workflows","Teams integrating eSignatures with Claude or other MCP-aware LLMs","Organizations standardizing AI tool communication via MCP protocol"],"limitations":["Requires MCP client implementation — not compatible with REST-only integrations","No built-in authentication beyond MCP transport layer — relies on parent application security","Limited to operations exposed via MCP schema — custom business logic requires server extension"],"requires":["MCP client library (e.g., @modelcontextprotocol/sdk for Node.js)","eSignatures API credentials or backend service","JSON-RPC 2.0 compatible transport (stdio, HTTP, WebSocket)"],"input_types":["JSON-RPC 2.0 request objects","Structured template metadata (name, content, signatories)","Contract parameters and variable bindings"],"output_types":["JSON-RPC 2.0 response objects","Template objects with IDs and metadata","Contract status and execution results"],"categories":["tool-use-integration","automation-workflow"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"awesome-esignatures__cap_1","uri":"capability://automation.workflow.contract.template.crud.operations.with.variable.binding","name":"contract template crud operations with variable binding","description":"Provides create, read, update, and delete operations for contract templates with support for dynamic variable substitution and placeholder management. Templates are stored with metadata (name, description, signatories) and can be retrieved individually or listed with filtering, enabling reusable contract patterns that adapt to different parties and terms via variable binding at execution time.","intents":["I want to create reusable contract templates with dynamic fields for different clients","I need to retrieve a specific template and bind variables before sending for signature","I want to update an existing template without affecting already-signed contracts"],"best_for":["Legal teams managing multiple contract types","SaaS platforms offering white-label contract workflows","Developers building contract automation for variable-term agreements"],"limitations":["No version control for templates — updates overwrite previous versions","Variable binding is string-based substitution — no type validation or complex transformations","No template inheritance or composition — each template is independent"],"requires":["eSignatures backend service with template storage","MCP server running with contract management endpoints","Template content in text format with placeholder syntax (e.g., {{variable_name}})"],"input_types":["Template name and description (strings)","Template content (text/HTML)","Signatory list (array of party objects)","Variable bindings (key-value map)"],"output_types":["Template object with ID, metadata, and content","List of templates with pagination metadata","Confirmation of create/update/delete operations"],"categories":["automation-workflow","data-processing-analysis"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"awesome-esignatures__cap_2","uri":"capability://text.generation.language.contract.drafting.with.ai.assisted.content.generation.via.llm.context","name":"contract drafting with ai-assisted content generation via llm context","description":"Enables LLM agents to draft contracts by combining template selection, variable binding, and content generation within a single MCP workflow. The agent can request a template, populate variables based on party information, and optionally generate missing clauses or terms using the LLM's reasoning capabilities, producing a complete contract ready for review or signature.","intents":["I want my AI agent to draft a contract from a template with auto-populated terms","I need to generate contract language for non-standard clauses based on party requirements","I want to create a contract workflow where the AI suggests terms before human review"],"best_for":["Legal tech platforms automating contract generation","AI agents handling contract workflows with human-in-the-loop review","Organizations reducing contract turnaround time via AI-assisted drafting"],"limitations":["Generated content requires human legal review — no built-in compliance checking","LLM-generated clauses may not align with jurisdiction-specific requirements","No automatic conflict detection between generated and template content","Drafting quality depends entirely on template quality and LLM prompt engineering"],"requires":["MCP server with template and contract creation endpoints","LLM with function calling support (Claude, GPT-4, etc.)","Party information and contract parameters in structured format","Legal templates covering common contract types"],"input_types":["Template ID and party information","Contract parameters (dates, amounts, terms)","Optional custom clause requirements (text descriptions)"],"output_types":["Drafted contract content (text/HTML)","Contract object with ID and metadata","Suggested clauses or terms (if generation requested)"],"categories":["text-generation-language","automation-workflow"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"awesome-esignatures__cap_3","uri":"capability://automation.workflow.contract.review.and.approval.workflow.orchestration","name":"contract review and approval workflow orchestration","description":"Orchestrates multi-party contract review workflows by managing contract state transitions (draft → review → approved → signed) and tracking reviewer feedback through MCP operations. Enables agents to route contracts to appropriate reviewers, collect comments, and coordinate approval decisions without direct database access — all state changes flow through MCP endpoints with audit trails.","intents":["I want to route a drafted contract to legal for review and track their feedback","I need to manage approval workflows where multiple parties must sign off before sending","I want to automate the process of collecting signatures once all reviews are complete"],"best_for":["Enterprise legal teams with multi-stage approval processes","Contract automation platforms requiring audit trails","Organizations standardizing contract workflows across departments"],"limitations":["No built-in notification system — requires external email/messaging integration","Workflow states are linear — no support for parallel reviews or conditional branching","No automatic escalation if reviews exceed time limits","Reviewer identity and permissions managed externally — MCP server assumes authenticated context"],"requires":["MCP server with contract state management endpoints","External notification system (email, Slack, etc.) for reviewer alerts","Reviewer identity and role information from parent application","Contract object with status and reviewer tracking fields"],"input_types":["Contract ID and reviewer list","Review comments and approval decisions","State transition requests (e.g., 'move to approved')"],"output_types":["Contract object with updated status and reviewer history","Audit log entries for each state transition","Approval decision summaries"],"categories":["automation-workflow","planning-reasoning"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"awesome-esignatures__cap_4","uri":"capability://tool.use.integration.contract.sending.and.signature.collection.via.esignatures.integration","name":"contract sending and signature collection via esignatures integration","description":"Integrates with eSignatures backend to send contracts for signature collection, managing signer lists, signature workflows, and completion tracking through MCP endpoints. Agents can initiate signature requests, specify signer order and authentication requirements, and poll for completion status — the MCP server handles the underlying eSignatures API communication and webhook processing.","intents":["I want to send a finalized contract to signatories and track signature progress","I need to configure signer order and authentication (e.g., email verification) before sending","I want to receive notifications when all signatories have signed"],"best_for":["Contract automation platforms integrating with eSignatures services","Legal teams automating signature collection workflows","Developers building end-to-end contract lifecycle management"],"limitations":["Signature authentication limited to eSignatures platform capabilities — no custom authentication","No built-in reminder system for unsigned contracts — requires external scheduling","Signer list must be finalized before sending — no dynamic signer addition after initiation","Webhook processing requires stable MCP server endpoint and network connectivity"],"requires":["eSignatures API credentials and account","MCP server with signature management endpoints","Signer email addresses and authentication preferences","Finalized contract content ready for signature"],"input_types":["Contract ID and signer list (email, name, authentication method)","Signature workflow configuration (signer order, deadline)","Optional message to signatories"],"output_types":["Signature request object with tracking ID","Signer status updates (pending, signed, declined)","Completion notification with signed document"],"categories":["tool-use-integration","automation-workflow"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"awesome-esignatures__cap_5","uri":"capability://data.processing.analysis.contract.document.retrieval.and.format.conversion","name":"contract document retrieval and format conversion","description":"Retrieves signed or draft contracts in multiple formats (PDF, HTML, plain text) through MCP endpoints, enabling agents to access contract content for analysis, archival, or downstream processing. Supports filtering by contract ID, status, date range, and party information — the server handles format conversion and document generation without exposing file system details.","intents":["I want to retrieve a signed contract as a PDF for archival or client delivery","I need to extract contract text for analysis or compliance checking","I want to list all contracts for a specific party or date range"],"best_for":["Contract management platforms requiring document export","Compliance and audit systems analyzing contract terms","Agents building contract analysis or summarization workflows"],"limitations":["Format conversion quality depends on underlying document generation library — complex layouts may not render perfectly","No built-in OCR for scanned documents — only works with digital contracts","Filtering limited to metadata fields — no full-text search across contract content","Large contract batches may timeout — no streaming or pagination for document retrieval"],"requires":["MCP server with contract retrieval endpoints","Document generation library (e.g., wkhtmltopdf, puppeteer) for PDF conversion","Contract metadata indexed and queryable"],"input_types":["Contract ID or filter criteria (status, date range, party name)","Desired output format (pdf, html, text)"],"output_types":["Contract document in requested format","Contract metadata (ID, status, signatories, dates)","List of contracts matching filter criteria"],"categories":["data-processing-analysis","tool-use-integration"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"awesome-esignatures__cap_6","uri":"capability://search.retrieval.contract.metadata.and.audit.log.querying","name":"contract metadata and audit log querying","description":"Provides read-only MCP endpoints for querying contract metadata (creation date, parties, status, version history) and audit logs (state transitions, reviewer actions, signature events) without exposing raw database queries. Agents can search contracts by party name, date range, or status, and retrieve complete audit trails for compliance and dispute resolution purposes.","intents":["I want to find all contracts with a specific party for relationship management","I need to retrieve the audit trail for a contract to prove compliance","I want to analyze contract lifecycle metrics (average review time, signature rate)"],"best_for":["Compliance and audit teams tracking contract history","Contract analytics platforms analyzing workflow metrics","Agents building contract search and discovery workflows"],"limitations":["Read-only access — no ability to modify or delete audit logs","Query performance depends on database indexing — complex filters may be slow","Audit logs immutable — no way to correct erroneous entries","No full-text search across contract content — only metadata and structured fields"],"requires":["MCP server with metadata and audit log endpoints","Contract database with indexed metadata fields","Audit logging infrastructure capturing all state transitions"],"input_types":["Search filters (party name, date range, status, contract type)","Contract ID for detailed audit log retrieval"],"output_types":["Contract metadata objects with summary information","Audit log entries with timestamps and actor information","Aggregated metrics (contract count, average lifecycle time)"],"categories":["search-retrieval","data-processing-analysis"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"awesome-esignatures__cap_7","uri":"capability://automation.workflow.multi.party.contract.negotiation.coordination","name":"multi-party contract negotiation coordination","description":"Coordinates contract negotiation workflows where multiple parties propose amendments, counter-offers, or revisions through MCP endpoints. Agents can track proposed changes, merge compatible amendments, flag conflicts, and route counter-proposals back to relevant parties — the server maintains version history and change tracking without requiring manual diff management.","intents":["I want to manage back-and-forth negotiations where parties propose different terms","I need to track which party proposed which amendment and when","I want to identify conflicting amendments and escalate to legal for resolution"],"best_for":["Enterprise contract negotiation platforms","Legal teams managing complex multi-party deals","Agents automating negotiation workflows with human oversight"],"limitations":["Amendment merging is heuristic-based — no semantic understanding of contract terms","Conflict detection limited to overlapping text ranges — no business logic validation","No automatic counter-proposal generation — agents must compose proposals manually","Version history grows unbounded — no automatic cleanup or archival of old versions"],"requires":["MCP server with amendment and version management endpoints","Change tracking library (e.g., diff-match-patch) for amendment comparison","Party identity and role information for routing proposals"],"input_types":["Base contract version and proposed amendments","Amendment metadata (proposing party, rationale, effective date)","Conflict resolution decisions (accept, reject, merge)"],"output_types":["Amendment objects with change tracking and metadata","Merged contract version with conflict markers","Version history with all proposed changes"],"categories":["automation-workflow","planning-reasoning"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0}],"trust":{"score":26,"verified":false,"data_access_risk":"high","permissions":["MCP client library (e.g., @modelcontextprotocol/sdk for Node.js)","eSignatures API credentials or backend service","JSON-RPC 2.0 compatible transport (stdio, HTTP, WebSocket)","eSignatures backend service with template storage","MCP server running with contract management endpoints","Template content in text format with placeholder syntax (e.g., {{variable_name}})","MCP server with template and contract creation endpoints","LLM with function calling support (Claude, GPT-4, etc.)","Party information and contract parameters in structured format","Legal templates covering common contract types"],"failure_modes":["Requires MCP client implementation — not compatible with REST-only integrations","No built-in authentication beyond MCP transport layer — relies on parent application security","Limited to operations exposed via MCP schema — custom business logic requires server extension","No version control for templates — updates overwrite previous versions","Variable binding is string-based substitution — no type validation or complex transformations","No template inheritance or composition — each template is independent","Generated content requires human legal review — no built-in compliance checking","LLM-generated clauses may not align with jurisdiction-specific requirements","No automatic conflict detection between generated and template content","Drafting quality depends entirely on template quality and LLM prompt engineering","builder identity is not verified yet","no observed match outcomes yet"],"rank_breakdown":{"adoption":0.05,"quality":0.26,"ecosystem":0.39999999999999997,"match_graph":0.25,"freshness":0.52,"weights":{"adoption":0.25,"quality":0.25,"ecosystem":0.15,"match_graph":0.23,"freshness":0.12}},"observed_outcomes":{"matches":0,"success_rate":0,"avg_confidence":0,"top_intents":[],"last_matched_at":null},"maintenance":{"status":"active","updated_at":"2026-06-17T09:51:03.039Z","last_scraped_at":"2026-05-03T14:00:15.503Z","last_commit":null},"community":{"stars":null,"forks":null,"weekly_downloads":null,"model_downloads":null,"model_likes":null}},"distribution":{"claim_url":"https://unfragile.ai/submit?claim=esignatures","compare_url":"https://unfragile.ai/compare?artifact=esignatures"}},"signature":"jbjPPaxedlPL+pBUa+l+NUwqPBbeqVnUu2vc+eVP6T618BYSXpAzsdiRo7ew+h2/FFUXqMDmmO6HXvz0D9cVBw==","signedAt":"2026-06-21T14:23:10.086Z","signedBy":"unfragile.ai","version":1},"_links":{"self":"https://unfragile.ai/api/v1/passport/esignatures","artifact":"https://unfragile.ai/esignatures","verify":"https://unfragile.ai/api/v1/verify?slug=esignatures","publicKey":"https://unfragile.ai/api/v1/trust-passport-public-key","spec":"https://unfragile.ai/trust","schema":"https://unfragile.ai/schema.json","docs":"https://unfragile.ai/docs"}}