Kamy

Get provenance chain

get_provenance_chain

Read-only

Replay everything recorded under one run_id — artifacts from attest_artifact and calls from record_agent_action — in order, with each record's link to its parent hash. Use it to answer 'what did this agent actually do, and in what sequence?' during an incident review, a handover, or an audit. Returns { run_id, chain_intact, records: [...] }, where chain_intact is the server's verdict on whether the parent-hash links are unbroken across the run. Read-only. Requires a Kamy API key.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`run_id`	Yes	The run_id you passed to attest_artifact / record_agent_action.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description confirms read-only, adds the return structure with chain_intact verdict, and notes the API key requirement. No contradictions, and extra context elevates transparency.

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?

Two sentences plus one sentence for returns, all front-loaded with the core action and use case. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description provides the full return structure and the meaning of chain_intact. It covers purpose, usage, parameters, requirements, and safety, making it complete for the tool's complexity.

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 a clear description for run_id. The description adds context by specifying that run_id comes from attest_artifact/record_agent_action, which adds meaning beyond the schema's generic description.

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 replays artifacts and calls under a run_id with order and parent hash links, and provides specific use cases (incident review, handover, audit). It distinguishes itself from sibling recording and trace tools.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description explicitly says 'Use it to answer...' and lists three contexts, along with read-only and API key requirements. It lacks explicit contrast with alternative trace tools like trace_record or trace_search but implies the unique purpose of chain verification.

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?