Kamy

Get render

get_render

Read-only

Fetch one previously produced document by its render id, with a freshly signed download URL valid for the next hour. This is the recovery path for an expired link: the URL is minted at read time, so calling this again on an old render always yields a working download. Use list_renders first if you do not have the id. Returns { id, name, templateId, templateName, status, bytes, durationMs, url, createdAt }, where url is null when the render failed, has not finished yet, or its file has aged out of retention — check status before assuming a download exists. Read-only and spends no quota.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`render_id`	Yes	Render id (UUID) as returned by render_pdf, render_async/get_job, or list_renders.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description significantly adds behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations. It explains the freshly signed URL expiry, the fact that calling again on an old render yields a working download, the conditions when url is null, and that it's read-only with no quota usage. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

The description is well-structured and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core action. Subsequent sentences add valuable context without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place, covering recovery path, usage guidance, return format, and caveats in a concise manner.

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 the tool's simplicity (single parameter, no output schema), the description is highly complete. It explains the return structure, when url is null, and the security aspect of fresh URLs. It covers the main use case and edge cases (failed, unfinished, aged out files) adequately.

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 coverage is 100% with a detailed description for render_id listing its origins. The tool description does not add new meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies. No extra parameter details are added.

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 verb 'Fetch' and the resource 'one previously produced document by its render id'. It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly mentioning to use list_renders if the id is unknown, and implies it's the recovery path for expired links, differentiating it from get_render_pages or render_pdf.

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 provides explicit guidance: use when you have a render id and want a fresh download URL, and use list_renders when you don't have the id. It also notes it's read-only and spends no quota. However, it does not exclude other scenarios like when multiple pages are needed, which could be handled by get_render_pages.

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?