Skip to main content
Glama

Kamy

by dev.kamy

Create a template

create_template

Create a new custom PDF template owned by this account: a name, a unique slug, a Handlebars/HTML body, and optional CSS and JSON Schema. The slug is what render_pdf then takes as template. Custom templates are a paid feature — on the Free plan this returns 403 FORBIDDEN before anything is created. The slug must be unique within the account and must not collide with a built-in system slug (invoice, receipt, quote, …); both cases come back 422, and the fix for an already-taken slug is update_template rather than a retry. A brand-new template has no published version, so it renders straight from what you supply here — publish_template only becomes necessary once you start cutting versions. Requires a Kamy API key with the templates:write scope; without a key, returns dashboard setup instructions.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cssNoStylesheet applied at render time. Max 1 MB.
htmlYesHandlebars/HTML body of the document. Max 5 MB.
nameYesHuman-readable template name.
slugYesStable identifier the render tools take as `template`. Unique per account, and it may not collide with a built-in system slug (invoice, receipt, quote, …) — both cases are rejected with 422.
tagsNoUp to 10 free-form labels.
schemaNoJSON Schema describing the data payload the template expects. Defaults to {}.
isPublicNoWhen true, other accounts can list and render it. Defaults to false.
descriptionNoWhat this template is for.

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description adds extensive behavioral context: it's a paid feature (403 on Free), name collision handling (422 with remediation), no published version on first creation, and requires a 'templates:write' scope API key. All of this goes well beyond the annotations alone.

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 a single paragraph of 6 sentences, which is efficient and front-loaded with the core action. Each sentence adds value. It could potentially be split into a short intro plus usage notes, but it's not overly verbose.

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?

The description fully covers the tool's behavior for 8 parameters, 3 required, nested objects (schema), no output schema (not needed since creation returns a version or status). It explains error cases, auth prerequisites, and the versioning lifecycle, making it complete for a complex tool with many siblings.

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 meaning by explaining the purpose of the slug (what render_pdf uses) and the relationship between create_template and publish_template. However, it doesn't elaborate on all 8 parameters beyond what the schema says; a bit more on 'isPublic' or 'tags' could push this to 5.

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 opens with 'Create a new custom PDF template owned by this account' which is a specific verb and resource. It lists the key fields (name, slug, HTML body, optional CSS and JSON Schema) and explicitly distinguishes the tool's outcome from siblings like update_template and publish_template.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus update_template (alternative for a taken slug) and publish_template (not needed for first version). It also states the Free plan returns 403, and explains error conditions for duplicate/conflicting slugs with specific HTTP codes and remediation.

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