Kamy

Get render pages as images

get_render_pages

Read-only

Rasterise every page of an existing render to a PNG image and return one signed 1-hour URL per page, with pixel width and height. Use this when a page has to be looked at rather than read — thumbnails, previews, visual QA of a layout, or an image attachment — and use extract_from_render when you want the text. The render must already have status 'success'; a queued or failed one comes back as 409 RENDER_NOT_READY. Repeated calls overwrite the same page images, so it is safe to retry. Rasterisation costs no render quota. Returns { pages: [{ page, width, height, url }], count, dpi }.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`dpi`	No	Raster resolution. Defaults to 150 (screen quality); 300 for print-quality thumbnails. Clamped to 72-300 server-side.
`render_id`	Yes	Render id (UUID) as returned by render_pdf, render_async/get_job, or list_renders.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false). It reveals that repeated calls overwrite page images (safe to retry), that rasterisation costs no render quota, and the 409 error condition. No contradiction 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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then usage guidance, then behavior details. Every sentence is informative and necessary. No fluff.

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 has only two parameters and no output schema, the description is fully complete. It covers the purpose, usage guidelines, prerequisites, error handling, idempotency, quota impact, and the return format (pages array with fields). No gaps.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description mentions the dpi defaults and range, but this information is also present in the schema's description field. The description does not add new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'rasterise' and the resource 'every page of an existing render to a PNG image'. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'extract_from_render' by specifying the use case: visual vs. text extraction. This is a specific and unambiguous purpose.

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 this tool ('thumbnails, previews, visual QA') and when to use the alternative 'extract_from_render' for text. It also provides a clear prerequisite: the render must have status 'success', and explains the error response for non-ready renders. This is excellent 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?