Skip to main content
Glama

Kamy

by dev.kamy

Get started with Kamy

get_started
Read-only

Everything needed to go from nothing to a rendered document in one call: the steps to create an API key in the dashboard, and — when you name a framework — the install command for the Kamy SDK, the environment variable it reads, and the client-setup snippet for that stack. Add a template slug and it also returns a ready-to-paste route handler that renders it. Every argument is optional and each one only adds a section, so calling this with no arguments is the right move when a user has no key yet, and calling it with framework + template is the right move when they are wiring the first endpoint. This replaces the separate install_sdk, generate_integration_code and get_api_key_instructions tools removed in 1.5.0. Pure text: it makes no API call, reads no account state, and needs no API key.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
templateNoTemplate slug (e.g. 'invoice') to also emit a ready-to-paste route handler that renders it. Requires `framework`. Call list_templates first if you do not know the slug.
frameworkNoStack being integrated. Omit to get only the API-key steps; supply it to also get the install command, the environment variable, and the client-setup snippet.
packageManagerNoPackage manager for the install command. Default npm. Ignored for Python stacks.

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description goes beyond by stating 'Pure text: it makes no API call, reads no account state, and needs no API key.' This explicitly confirms no side effects or dependencies, fully disclosing the tool's behavior. No contradiction 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, well-structured paragraph that front-loads the core value proposition and proceeds logically through parameters and usage guidance. Every sentence is informative with no redundancy or filler, and it wastes zero 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?

Despite having no output schema, the description clearly enumerates what the tool returns (API key steps, install command, environment variable, client-setup snippet, optional route handler). Given the tool's simplicity (no API calls, no side effects) and the full schema coverage, the description is completely adequate and leaves no gaps.

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 baseline is 3. However, the description adds significant value: it explains that each parameter is optional and 'each one only adds a section,' clarifies that packageManager is ignored for Python stacks, and elaborates on what framework adds (install command, environment variable, client-setup snippet). This surpasses the baseline by providing practical usage details beyond 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 clearly states that get_started provides everything from nothing to a rendered document in one call, specifying the steps, commands, and snippets it returns. It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming the replaced tools (install_sdk, generate_integration_code, get_api_key_instructions) and emphasizing this is a consolidated onboarding endpoint.

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 explicitly advises when to call with no arguments (when user has no key yet) and when to include framework + template (when wiring the first endpoint). It also notes that template requires framework, and to call list_templates first if the slug is unknown. This provides clear usage context and alternatives.

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