Skip to main content
Glama

Kamy

by dev.kamy.mcp

Attest artifact

attest_artifact

Cryptographically sign an output your agent produced — a PDF, report, code patch, dataset, email — so a third party can later confirm those exact bytes are the ones that were recorded, unmodified. Pass content_text or content_base64 and Kamy hashes the bytes for you; pass content_sha256 alone when the content itself must never leave your environment. Returns { attestation_id, content_sha256, signature, recorded_at, verify_url } — hand verify_url to whoever needs to check the artifact. This proves the bytes match what this account recorded at that time; it makes no claim about whether the content is correct. Requires a Kamy API key.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tagsNoUp to 20 free-form labels.
run_idNoYour identifier for the agent run this artifact belongs to. Pass the same run_id across attestations and agent-action records to build one provenance chain readable via get_provenance_chain.
featureNoProduct area or pipeline name, for grouping attestations.
metadataNoArbitrary JSON stored alongside the attestation (model, source URL, reviewer, ...).
content_textNoUTF-8 text artifact. Convenience input: this MCP server base64-encodes it locally and sends it as content_base64 — no other transformation is applied. Supply exactly one of content_sha256, content_base64, or content_text.
artifact_typeYesWhat kind of output this is, e.g. 'pdf', 'report', 'code_patch', 'dataset', 'email', 'llm_output'. Free-form label used for filtering later.
parent_sha256Nocontent_sha256 of the preceding record in the chain, when this artifact was derived from an earlier one.
content_base64NoBase64-encoded artifact bytes. Use for binary output (PDF, image, archive). Supply exactly one of content_sha256, content_base64, or content_text.
content_sha256NoSHA-256 of the artifact bytes, when you'd rather not send the content itself. Supply exactly one of content_sha256, content_base64, or content_text.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Description explains the tool hashes bytes, returns specific fields, and explicitly states what the attestation proves and does NOT prove (no correctness claim). Annotations are minimal (no readOnlyHint or destructiveHint), but description fully discloses behavior. Could note whether it is rate-limited or requires specific permissions beyond API key.

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?

Single paragraph is front-loaded with the core action, then parameter guidance, then return value summary, then caveat. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. No filler.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the complexity (9 params, nested objects, mutual exclusivity), the description covers all key aspects: use case, parameter selection, return fields, and limitations. No output schema exists, but the return shape is described. The caveat about not claiming correctness is particularly valuable.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, with each parameter well-described. The description adds value by clarifying the mutual exclusivity of content parameters and the hashing behavior. It does not repeat parameter descriptions, instead providing functional context. Loses a point because it doesn't mention the 'tags' or 'metadata' use cases beyond what schema says.

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?

Description clearly states the tool cryptographically signs agent outputs (PDF, report, etc.) for later verification. Uses specific verb 'sign' and resource 'artifact', and distinguishes it from siblings like 'verify_attestation' and 'pki_sign_pdf' by focusing on recording proof of origin.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Provides explicit guidance on when to use each content parameter: pass content_text or content_base64 when content can leave environment, or content_sha256 when it must not. Also tells the agent to hand verify_url to third parties. No sibling alternatives are directly contrasted, but the usage scenarios are clear.

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

All Kamy 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

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose with detailed descriptions that differentiate similar tools (e.g., render_pdf vs render_async vs render_batch, create_signature_request vs create_envelope). No two tools overlap in a way that would cause confusion.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent lower_snake_case verb_noun pattern (e.g., attest_artifact, convert_document, list_renders). No mixing of conventions or ambiguous verb choices.

Tool Count4/5

47 tools is high but reflects the broad scope of the platform (document generation, signing, auditing, scheduling, webhooks, verification). Some informational tools could be merged, but the count is still reasonable for the domain.

Completeness3/5

The tool set covers the core document lifecycle well but has notable gaps: no tool to delete renders, no tool to void/cancel signature requests, and no CRUD for templates (only list and schema). The inability to pause schedules via MCP is also a gap.

Resources