Kamy

Render PDF

render_pdf

Render a PDF from a Kamy template and data, and wait for it. This is the default document tool: it blocks until the file exists and hands back { id, url, bytes, durationMs, templateId, createdAt } in one call, where url is a signed download link valid for one hour and id is the render id every later tool takes. Reach for render_async instead when waiting is not acceptable, and render_batch when several documents are wanted at once. Call get_template_schema first if you are unsure what fields the template expects. Counts one render against the monthly quota — get_account tells you what is left before this fails with 402. Requires a Kamy API key with the render scope; without a key, returns dashboard setup instructions.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	Yes	Data to populate the template
`format`	No		a4
`template`	Yes	Template slug (e.g., 'invoice') or template UUID

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark the tool as not read-only, not open-world, and not destructive, which is consistent with a blocking render operation. The description goes well beyond annotations by disclosing the blocking/wait behavior, the one-hour signed URL expiration, the monthly quota impact (402 failure), and the authentication requirement (Kamy API key with `render` scope). This provides rich behavioral context not captured in 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 a single, well-structured paragraph of about 120 words. Every sentence adds essential value: purpose, blocking behavior, alternatives, prerequisites, quota implications, and authentication requirements. There is no redundancy or filler, making it efficient for an AI agent to parse.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description is remarkably complete. It explains the blocking nature, return format, URL validity, sibling distinctions, prerequisite steps, quota limits, and auth requirements. No additional information seems necessary for an AI agent to use this tool correctly.

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 67%, with `data` and `template` described in schema. The description adds no further parameter-level details (e.g., format values, data structure), but this is acceptable since the schema already provides basic descriptions. The description compensates by clarifying the tool's overall context, such as the `url` field meaning and quota impact, which indirectly aids parameter understanding.

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 uses a specific verb ('Render') and resource ('PDF from a Kamy template and data'), and clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like `render_async` and `render_batch`. It also explains the blocking behavior and the exact return structure, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 states when to use this tool ('default document tool'), when not to ('when waiting is not acceptable'), and names specific alternatives (`render_async`, `render_batch`). It also provides a precondition ('call get_template_schema first') and a quota check hint ('get_account tells you what is left'), offering comprehensive guidance for proper selection.

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?