Skip to main content
Glama

Kamy

by dev.kamy

Send one PDF to many separate signers

bulk_signature_requests

Fan one already-rendered PDF out to up to 100 independent signers in a single call — the 'send this NDA to everyone on the list' path. Each signer gets their own request, their own sign link and their own invitation email, but they all share one source render, so only one document is produced and stored. Choose create_envelope instead when the recipients are signing the SAME document together and you need routing, ordering and one envelope status; choose this when they are unrelated parties each signing their own copy. Duplicate signer emails within one batch are rejected up front with 422. Per-signer failures do not abort the batch: the response is { bulkId, count, successCount, failureCount, results } in input order, each row either ok with signatureId and signUrl or ok:false with a reason, and the call returns 207 when any row failed. Consumes one signature from the monthly quota PER signer (free tier: 10 per month, then per-signature billing), so a large batch can exhaust a small plan part-way through and the remaining rows come back failed. Requires a Kamy API key with the signatures:write scope; without a key, returns dashboard setup instructions.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
messageNoShared invite message. `{{signerName}}` is substituted per recipient.
signersYes1–100 signers. Duplicate emails are rejected up front with 422.
positionNoOne signature rectangle in PDF points (origin bottom-left) shared by every signer.
renderIdYesRender UUID every signer receives. One render, one storage object, many requests.
expiresInNoSign-link lifetime in seconds. Min 1 hour, max 30 days. Defaults to 7 days.
reminderCadenceHoursNoAuto-reminder cadence in hours, shared across the batch. Up to 3 reminders.

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false (not read-only), openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description goes well beyond by detailing: duplicate emails rejected with 422, per-signer failures return 207 with partial results, consumes one signature per signer from quota with free tier limits, requires signatures:write scope, and even describes the response shape. No contradictions with 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 paragraph of 6 sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: core behavior, comparison with sibling, duplicate handling, error handling with response shape, quota consumption, and auth requirements. Front-loaded with the main use case. Zero wasted words.

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 complexity (nested signers object, position, 6 parameters, partial-failure semantics, quota impact, auth scope), the description covers all critical aspects. No output schema exists, but the response structure is described inline. The sibling list shows 50+ tools, yet the description uniquely positions this tool vs create_envelope. Complete for an agent to decide and invoke correctly.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for each parameter. The description adds meaning beyond the schema: explains that `message` supports `{{signerName}}` substitution, that `signers` duplicates are rejected with 422, that `position` is in PDF points with bottom-left origin and shared by every signer, and that `expiresIn` defaults to 7 days and `reminderCadenceHours` is shared across the batch. No schema gaps remain.

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 tool fans one PDF to up to 100 independent signers, each getting their own request, link, and email. It distinguishes this from create_envelope, which is for joint signing with routing. The verb 'fan' and resource 'one PDF to many separate signers' is specific and immediately understandable.

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?

Explicitly says when to use ('send this NDA to everyone on the list') and when not ('Choose create_envelope instead when the recipients are signing the SAME document together'). No usage gaps; the description directly contrasts the sibling tool and provides clear decision criteria.

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