Kamy

Get account

get_account

Read-only

Read everything about the authenticated Kamy account in one call: profile, plan and plan status, the plan's limits (renders per month, API keys, seats, custom templates, overage pricing, priority queue), month-to-date render usage, and whether documents rendered on this plan carry Kamy's own watermark. This is the only tool that answers any of those questions — there is no separate quota tool. Call it before render_batch, create_schedule, or any long series of renders: usage.renders.remaining is how many the API will still accept, and every render tool fails with 402 QUOTA_EXCEEDED once it hits zero, a failure nothing can recover from within the same calendar month. quota and remaining are null on unmetered plans, which means unlimited, not zero. Also check watermarkPolicy.appliedToRenders before generating something the user intends to send on: it is true on the free plan and cannot be turned off per render. Read-only, spends nothing, and works with any valid API key regardless of its scopes.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds significant behavioral details: read-only, spends nothing, works with any valid API key regardless of scopes. It also clarifies edge cases like 'quota and remaining are null on unmetered plans, which means unlimited, not zero' and watermark policy behavior. This goes well 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is fairly long but every sentence serves a purpose. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then expands with specific usage details and warnings. A slight reduction in wordiness could improve readability, but it is well-structured and informative.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description provides complete context. It explains what is returned (profile, plan, limits, usage, watermark), how to interpret null values, and why the tool is needed before other operations. There are no gaps in understanding how to use or interpret this tool.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so parameter semantics are trivially satisfied. The description adds no parameter meaning because none exist, but it does cover all aspects of the tool's behavior. Per the rubric, 0 params gets a baseline of 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 clearly states 'Read everything about the authenticated Kamy account in one call' and enumerates specific items (profile, plan, limits, usage, watermark). It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly noting 'This is the only tool that answers any of those questions — there is no separate quota tool.' This provides a specific verb+resource scope with sibling differentiation.

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 tells when to use the tool: 'Call it before render_batch, create_schedule, or any long series of renders.' It also explains what to check (usage.renders.remaining) and the consequence of quota exhaustion ('every render tool fails with 402 QUOTA_EXCEEDED'). This provides clear when/why usage guidance.

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

All Kamy 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

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

Need Help?