Kamy

Render Word document

render_docx

Render an editable Word (.docx) document from a Kamy template and data. Takes the same { template, data } payload as render_pdf but produces a different container — reach for it when the recipient has to EDIT the document (legal redlines, Word-based intake, corporate templates) rather than receive a fixed artifact. Only five slugs have a Word implementation — invoice, receipt, quote, contract, agreement — and any other template is rejected with a validation error; use render_pdf for those. Returns { id, url, bytes, durationMs, format: 'docx' }, where url is a signed download link valid for one hour and id is a normal render id. Counts one render against the monthly quota. Requires a Kamy API key with the render scope; without a key, returns dashboard setup instructions.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`data`	No	Template data, identical in shape to the render_pdf payload for the same slug — call get_template_schema first to get the exact fields.
`name`	No	Label stored on the render row so the document is identifiable in the dashboard.
`template`	Yes	Which built-in document to build. These five are the only slugs with a Word implementation; custom templates and other system templates are PDF-only (use render_pdf).

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations are sparse (readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint false, openWorldHint false), so the description carries high burden. It clearly discloses mutation (counts against quota, requires render scope) and return structure (signed URL valid one hour, render id). Loses a point for not stating whether the data object is validated or what happens on invalid data beyond the template enum.

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?

Every sentence earns its place — starts with core purpose, then differential guidance, then constraints, then response format, then billing/scoping. No redundancy, no fluff. Front-loaded with critical sibling distinction.

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 moderate complexity (3 params, 1 enum, no output schema), the description fully covers the tool's operational context: supported templates, sibling relationship, auth requirements, quota behavior, API key setup instructions, and exact return fields. No gaps identified.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by explaining the envelope (template/data) payload relationship to render_pdf, the signed URL lifetime, and quota impact, which are beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. Could be a 5 if it explained the data parameter default behavior more explicitly.

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 ('Render') and resource ('Word document') with specific output distinction from sibling render_pdf. It explicitly distinguishes itself as producing a .docx container for editable documents, making sibling differentiation strong.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('when the recipient has to EDIT the document') and when-not-to-use guidance ('use render_pdf for those' slugs not in the five listed). It also lists the exact set of supported templates and alternative for unsupported ones.

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?