Skip to main content
Glama

Kamy

by dev.kamy.mcp

Create a template

create_template

Create a new custom PDF template owned by this account: a name, a unique slug, a Handlebars/HTML body, and optional CSS and JSON Schema. The slug is what render_pdf then takes as template. Custom templates are a paid feature — on the Free plan this returns 403 FORBIDDEN before anything is created. The slug must be unique within the account and must not collide with a built-in system slug (invoice, receipt, quote, …); both cases come back 422, and the fix for an already-taken slug is update_template rather than a retry. A brand-new template has no published version, so it renders straight from what you supply here — publish_template only becomes necessary once you start cutting versions. Requires a Kamy API key with the templates:write scope; without a key, returns dashboard setup instructions.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cssNoStylesheet applied at render time. Max 1 MB.
htmlYesHandlebars/HTML body of the document. Max 5 MB.
nameYesHuman-readable template name.
slugYesStable identifier the render tools take as `template`. Unique per account, and it may not collide with a built-in system slug (invoice, receipt, quote, …) — both cases are rejected with 422.
tagsNoUp to 10 free-form labels.
schemaNoJSON Schema describing the data payload the template expects. Defaults to {}.
isPublicNoWhen true, other accounts can list and render it. Defaults to false.
descriptionNoWhat this template is for.

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, but the description goes far beyond: explains the paid feature restriction (403 on Free plan), slug uniqueness constraints, new template versioning behavior (no published version initially), and required auth scope. No contradiction with annotations — description adds rich context annotations don't cover.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the core action and key parameters, then progressively adds constraints, error handling, and auth. Every sentence provides unique, actionable information. No filler or repetition.

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?

For a creation tool with 8 parameters, no output schema, and a non-trivial versioning model, this description is remarkably complete. It covers what the tool does, prerequisites, failure modes, how to fix collisions, and the relationship to sibling tools. The only minor gap is no mention of the return value or response format, but this is acceptable given the complexity is well covered elsewhere.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the relationship between slug and render_pdf, the versioning lifecycle, and the error conditions (403, 422), which the schema's property descriptions do not cover. It could also briefly explain how `schema` and `isPublic` are used, but the schema descriptions are already clear.

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 states the verb 'Create', the resource 'custom PDF template', and key attributes (name, slug, Handlebars/HTML body, optional CSS/schema). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like update_template, publish_template, and render_pdf by explaining the slug lifecycle and when each tool applies.

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?

Excellent usage guidance: explicitly says when NOT to use it (Free plan → 403), what to do if slug is taken (use update_template, not retry), and mentions API key scope requirement. This directly helps an agent decide between this tool and siblings like update_template or publish_template.

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