Skip to main content
Glama

Kamy

by dev.kamy.mcp

Send one PDF to multiple signers

create_envelope

Send a single PDF to 2–10 signers as one envelope. This is the multi-signer counterpart to create_signature_request, which handles exactly one signer — the API rejects an envelope with fewer than two recipients, so pick the tool by signer count. routing 'parallel' (default) emails everyone at once and each signs independently; routing 'sequential' emails only the lowest-order recipient and activates the rest one at a time as each preceding signer finishes, which is what you want for approve-then-countersign chains. The source is either a render you own (renderId) or a PDF fetched from a public URL (pdfUrl) — supply exactly one. Pass preview: true to create the envelope and get every sign URL back WITHOUT sending any email and WITHOUT consuming quota; do that first if you are unsure about field placement. A real send emails the recipients immediately and consumes one signature from the monthly quota PER recipient (free tier: 10 signatures/month, then per-signature billing). Returns { envelope, recipients: [...] } with a sign_url per recipient. Requires a Kamy API key with the signatures:write scope; without a key, returns dashboard setup instructions.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pdfUrlNoPublicly fetchable PDF URL. Kamy downloads it and stores it as a render first. Supply exactly one of renderId or pdfUrl.
messageNoMessage included in every invitation email.
previewNoWhen true, creates the envelope and returns every sign URL WITHOUT emailing anyone and without consuming signature quota. Use it to check placement and routing before the real send.
routingNo'parallel' (default) emails everyone at once and each signs independently. 'sequential' emails only the lowest-order recipient; the rest are created with status 'waiting' and activated one at a time as the preceding signer completes.parallel
ccEmailsNoUp to 10 observers CC'd on the invitations. Not signers.
positionNoDefault signature placement in PDF points, origin bottom-left.
renderIdNoUUID of a completed render owned by this account. Supply exactly one of renderId or pdfUrl.
expiresInNoSign-link lifetime in seconds. Min 1 hour, max 30 days.
recipientsYes2–10 signers. The route rejects a single recipient — use create_signature_request for one signer.
placedFieldsNoUp to 100 sender-placed form fields for signers to complete.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses several behavioral traits beyond the annotations: preview mode skips email and quota, real send emails immediately and consumes one signature per recipient, quota limits ('free tier: 10 signatures/month'), and the return shape ('{ envelope, recipients: […] } with a sign_url per recipient'). This fully informs the agent of side effects, costs, and responses. No contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false).

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a dense single paragraph that covers all key points without fluff. Every sentence serves a purpose. However, it could be more scannable with bullet points or line breaks for the auth note and return shape. Still, it's tightly written and front-loads the core purpose.

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?

Given 10 parameters (including a complex nested recipients array and placedFields), no output schema, and sibling tools, the description addresses the main workflow: source selection, routing, preview mode, real send effects, and return value. It doesn't cover every edge case (e.g., what happens if signer order is omitted in sequential mode) but provides sufficient guidance for correct use. The lack of output schema is compensated by stating the return shape explicitly.

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% (all 10 parameters have descriptions), so the baseline expectation is 3. The description adds meaningful context: explains the exclusivity of renderId/pdfUrl, details routing behavior beyond enum values, clarifies preview flag purpose, and notes the per-recipient message override. It doesn't repeat schema boilerplate but offers practical guidance, earning a 4.

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 opens with a precise verb-resource pairing: 'Send a single PDF to 2–10 signers as one envelope.' It immediately distinguishes this tool from the sibling create_signature_request by calling it the 'multi-signer counterpart' and explaining the API rejects fewer than two recipients. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does or when to choose it.

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?

The description explicitly states when to use this tool ('pick the tool by signer count') and when not to (fewer than 2 signers → use create_signature_request). It also explains routing modes with concrete scenarios ('parallel… each signs independently', 'sequential… approve-then-countersign chains'). Prerequisites ('Kamy API key with signatures:write scope') and the alternative without a key ('returns dashboard setup instructions') are clearly provided.

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