Skip to main content
Glama

Kamy

by dev.kamy

Attest artifact

attest_artifact

Cryptographically sign an output your agent produced — a PDF, report, code patch, dataset, email — so a third party can later confirm those exact bytes are the ones that were recorded, unmodified. Pass content_text or content_base64 and Kamy hashes the bytes for you; pass content_sha256 alone when the content itself must never leave your environment. Returns { attestation_id, content_sha256, signature, recorded_at, verify_url } — hand verify_url to whoever needs to check the artifact. This proves the bytes match what this account recorded at that time; it makes no claim about whether the content is correct. Requires a Kamy API key.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tagsNoUp to 20 free-form labels.
run_idNoYour identifier for the agent run this artifact belongs to. Pass the same run_id across attestations and agent-action records to build one provenance chain readable via get_provenance_chain.
featureNoProduct area or pipeline name, for grouping attestations.
metadataNoArbitrary JSON stored alongside the attestation (model, source URL, reviewer, ...).
content_textNoUTF-8 text artifact. Convenience input: this MCP server base64-encodes it locally and sends it as content_base64 — no other transformation is applied. Supply exactly one of content_sha256, content_base64, or content_text.
artifact_typeYesWhat kind of output this is, e.g. 'pdf', 'report', 'code_patch', 'dataset', 'email', 'llm_output'. Free-form label used for filtering later.
parent_sha256Nocontent_sha256 of the preceding record in the chain, when this artifact was derived from an earlier one.
content_base64NoBase64-encoded artifact bytes. Use for binary output (PDF, image, archive). Supply exactly one of content_sha256, content_base64, or content_text.
content_sha256NoSHA-256 of the artifact bytes, when you'd rather not send the content itself. Supply exactly one of content_sha256, content_base64, or content_text.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description fully discloses behavioral traits beyond the annotations: it explains the hashing process ('Kamy hashes the bytes for you'), the security nuance (content never leaves when using sha256), and the scope of proof ('makes no claim about whether the content is correct'). Annotations are readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, which are correctly non-contradictory – the tool writes a new attestation but is not destructive. No annotation contradiction.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences long and front-loads the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first covers purpose and usage modes, the second covers the return value and caveat. Slightly verbose in the first sentence listing artifact types (PDF, report, code patch, etc.), but justified for making the tool's scope concrete.

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's moderate complexity (9 parameters, 1 required, nested objects), the description is complete: it explains how to use the three content parameters, what the response contains, and what the attestation does and does not guarantee. No output schema exists, but the description explicitly lists the return fields (attestation_id, content_sha256, signature, recorded_at, verify_url) and their purpose.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds significant value beyond the schema: it explains the three mutually exclusive content inputs (content_text, content_base64, content_sha256) and their trade-offs, clarifies that content_text is automatically base64-encoded locally, and describes the return value structure. It also imparts the concept of building a provenance chain via parent_sha256 and run_id, which is not explicit in the schema.

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 specific verbs like 'cryptographically sign' and 'hash' with a clear resource (an output artifact). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'verify_attestation' and 'record_agent_action' by focusing on signing for third-party verification, and includes a concrete list of artifact types (PDF, report, code patch, etc.).

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 explicitly states when to use the tool (to sign an output for third-party verification) and provides a key decision point: pass content_text/content_base64 if content can leave, or content_sha256 alone if it must stay in-environment. It doesn't explicitly name sibling tools as alternatives (e.g., 'verify_attestation' for verification, 'record_agent_action' for logging actions), but the guidance is clear enough for correct selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Kamy toolsInspect
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

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct action or resource with minimal ambiguity. For example, `render_pdf`, `render_docx`, `render_xlsx`, and `pptx` are clearly different output formats, while `merge_pdfs`, `split_pdf`, and `edit_pdf` target different PDF operations. The signature tools (`create_signature_request`, `get_signature_request`, etc.) are also clearly separated by lifecycle stage. No two tools appear to do the same thing.

Naming Consistency5/5

Tool names follow a highly consistent `verb_noun` pattern throughout, such as `create_signature_request`, `get_signature_request`, `list_signature_requests`, and `remind_signature`. This pattern is applied uniformly across all major domains (render, signature, template, webhook, trace), making the API predictable and easy for an agent to navigate.

Tool Count4/5

With 59 tools, this is a large surface area, but it is justified by the breadth of functionality: document rendering in multiple formats, e-signatures, template management, webhooks, scheduling, and a crypto/audit trail. While large, each tool has a distinct purpose, and the count feels appropriate for the scope of a comprehensive document automation API. A surface this large risks being overwhelming, but the internal organization is logical.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface is remarkably complete, covering the full lifecycle for multiple domains. For e-signatures, there are tools for CRUD (requests, templates), sending (individual, bulk, envelope), monitoring (get, list), reminders, and certificates. For documents, it covers creation, conversion, editing, merging, splitting, and verification. The inclusion of utility tools like `get_started`, `validate_payload`, and the audit trail tools further solidifies this as a well-considered, production-ready API surface.

Resources