Kamy

Get job status

get_job

Read-only

Poll an asynchronous render job started by render_async. Returns { jobId, status } where status is 'queued', 'processing', 'completed' or 'failed'; on 'completed' the response also carries render with the finished document's id, signed URL, size and duration, and on 'failed' it carries error with the reason. Poll every few seconds rather than in a tight loop — a typical render finishes in seconds, a heavy one can take a minute. If a job's signed URL has since expired, pass its render id to get_render for a fresh one. Read-only and spends no quota.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`job_id`	Yes	The jobId render_async returned.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint), the description adds detailed return schema, polling behavior, and expiration handling. It discloses the tool's read-only nature and quota implication, fully transparent.

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?

Three sentences, each with high information density. Front-loaded with purpose, then return details, then usage advice. No wasted words.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully explains the return structure, statuses, conditional fields, and lifecycle. It's complete and self-contained.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema has 100% coverage and describes job_id as 'The jobId render_async returned.' The description echoes this without adding new meaning. Since schema coverage is high, baseline is 3.

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 the tool polls an asynchronous render job started by render_async. It specifies the return structure with statuses and conditional fields, distinguishing it from related tools like get_render.

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?

Explicitly says to poll every few seconds, not in a tight loop, and mentions typical duration. Provides alternative (get_render) for expired URLs. States it's read-only and spends no quota, guiding appropriate usage.

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?