Kamy

PKI-sign PDF

pki_sign_pdf

Cryptographically sign an existing render with PAdES when a Kamy API key is configured. Without a key, returns dashboard setup instructions.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`reason`	No	Optional /Sig dictionary Reason — surfaced in Acrobat's signature panel. ASCII-coerced server-side.
`location`	No	Optional /Sig dictionary Location.
`renderId`	Yes	Render UUID returned by render_pdf or any /v1/render call. The PDF will be sealed with a Kamy-issued X.509 leaf certificate.
`signerName`	No	Override the signer display name. Defaults to the account's full_name.
`signerEmail`	No	Override the signer email. Defaults to the account's email.
`withTimestamp`	No	When false, skip the RFC 3161 timestamp call (PAdES-B-B instead of B-T). Default: true.
`withRevocationInfo`	No	When false, skip embedding the Kamy CA CRL into the PKCS#7 SignedData (PAdES-B-T instead of B-LT). Online verifiers can still fetch the CRL via the Distribution Point on the leaf cert. Default: true.

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations indicate it is not read-only (readOnlyHint=false), and the description confirms it performs a cryptographic signature, which is a mutation. It also discloses the alternative outcome when no key is configured. No contradictions with annotations. Additional details about the signing standard (PAdES) are provided, but the impact on the original render is not explicitly stated.

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 concise, with only two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the main purpose and condition, and the second covers the fallback. No wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite having 7 parameters and no output schema, the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., a signed PDF or a new document). It also lacks details on the signing process or prerequisites beyond the API key. Given the complexity of signing, more guidance is needed for the agent.

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 each parameter well. The tool description does not add extra parameter guidance beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline expectation.

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 action ('cryptographically sign an existing render with PAdES') and the resource ('existing render'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like verify_pdf_signature or create_signature_request by specifying the signing action and the condition of having a Kamy API key configured.

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 context for when to use the tool ('when a Kamy API key is configured') and what happens without it ('returns dashboard setup instructions'). However, it does not directly compare with sibling tools or state when not to use this tool, but the conditional guidance is helpful.

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?