Skip to main content
Glama

Kamy

by dev.kamy

Create a webhook

create_webhook

Register an HTTPS endpoint that Kamy POSTs to when work finishes, so a long render or an e-signature does not have to be polled. Use this when the caller owns a server that can receive callbacks; use get_job or list_renders when it cannot. The response includes a one-time signing secret used to verify delivery signatures — it is shown here and never again, so surface it to the user immediately and tell them to store it. Defaults to the render.completed and render.failed events; the full set is render.completed, render.failed, signature.signed, signature.voided, signature.expired, signature.envelope_completed, signature.envelope_voided, test.ping, and any other string is accepted so new events can be subscribed to without an upgrade. Endpoint URLs on private, loopback, link-local or cloud-metadata hosts are rejected at registration, so a localhost tunnel will not work — use a public URL.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesHTTPS endpoint Kamy POSTs each event to. Private, loopback, link-local and cloud-metadata hosts are rejected at registration time, so localhost and 10.x/192.168.x addresses will not work.
eventsNoEvent names to receive. Defaults to ["render.completed", "render.failed"]. Known events: render.completed, render.failed, signature.signed, signature.voided, signature.expired, signature.envelope_completed, signature.envelope_voided, test.ping.
enabledNoDefaults to true. Register it disabled to wire it up before switching it on.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations show `destructiveHint: false`, which aligns with the description's non-destructive nature. The description adds transparency beyond annotations by disclosing the one-time signing secret delivery (critical for agent behavior), default events, and host restrictions (private/loopback/link-local/cloud-metadata). It doesn't explicitly state idempotency behavior or whether duplicate registrations are allowed, which would be helpful, but the provided details are strong.

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 concise at 5-6 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and usage guidelines. Each sentence provides unique value: purpose, usage alternative, secret disclosure, default events, and URL restrictions. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for events), but it is well-organized and avoids redundancy with the schema. The length is appropriate for the tool's moderate complexity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has 3 parameters (100% schema coverage) and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral details (secret, host restrictions), and parameter context (default events). It lacks explicit idempotency or error handling information, but for a registration tool, the description is substantially complete. The sibling tools (e.g., `test_webhook`) are not referenced, but the description already clarifies the tool's role.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, providing clear meaning for all three parameters (`url`, `events`, `enabled`). The description adds value by explaining the one-time secret and default events, which the schema does not cover. It does not reiterate parameter descriptions from the schema, which is appropriate. The description's mention of wildcard event acceptance ('any other string is accepted') is not in the schema, adding critical context.

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 that the tool registers an HTTPS endpoint for Kamy to POST to when work finishes, distinguishing it from polling-based approaches. It explicitly names the verb 'register' and the resource 'HTTPS endpoint', making the purpose unambiguous. The sibling tools list includes `list_webhooks` and `test_webhook`, but the description's focus on creating a new subscription sets this tool apart.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use this when the caller owns a server that can receive callbacks' and 'use get_job or list_renders when it cannot'. This directly contrasts the tool's use case with alternatives, offering a clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use rule. It also warns about endpoint URL restrictions, further guiding appropriate usage.

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