Kamy

Split a render into page ranges

split_pdf

Extract page ranges from one existing render into separate new PDFs — the inverse of merge_pdfs. Each range you pass produces its own render, returned in the same order, so one call can both halve a contract and peel off single pages. Omit a range's to to run to the end of the document; a range starting past the last page fails the entire call. The source render is left untouched. Returns { renders: [...], count }, each entry a normal render object usable with merge_pdfs, edit_pdf or the signature tools. Requires a Kamy API key with the render scope; without a key, returns dashboard setup instructions.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ranges`	Yes	1–50 page ranges; each produces one output render, returned in this order. A range that starts past the last page fails the whole call.
`renderId`	Yes	UUID of the completed render to split. Must belong to this account.

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations are readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description confirms non-destructiveness ('The source render is left untouched') and describes the output structure ('Returns { renders: [...], count }'). No contradictions and adds meaningful behavioral context.

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 serves a purpose: purpose statement, usage example, edge-case behavior, return format, auth requirement. No wasted words; front-loaded with the primary action.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully specifies the return format and how renders relate to other tools. Auth, error cases, and parameter behavior are covered. No gaps for a 2-param tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by exemplifying multi-range usage ('halve a contract and peel off single pages') and clarifying the effect of omitting `to`, but these are largely redundant with schema descriptions. Slight improvement warrants a 4.

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 explicitly states the action ('Extract page ranges from one existing render into separate new PDFs'), identifies the resource (render), and distinguishes from a sibling tool ('the inverse of merge_pdfs'). This is specific and actionable.

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?

Provides clear when-to-use guidance ('one call can both halve a contract and peel off single pages'), exclusion rules ('a range starting past the last page fails the entire call'), auth requirements ('Requires a Kamy API key with the `render` scope'), and fallback behavior ('without a key, returns dashboard setup instructions').

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?