Skip to main content
Glama

Kamy

by dev.kamy

List signature templates

list_signature_templates
Read-only

List this account's reusable e-signature presets — saved field placements, default invite message, default link lifetime and CC list — newest first. These are signing presets, NOT the document catalog: list_templates is what render_pdf draws from. Rows here carry only id, name, description, expires_in and cc_emails; call get_signature_template for the placed_fields and position. Pass an id as create_signature_request's signatureTemplateId to apply a preset instead of re-specifying the layout every time. Returns { templates, total, limit, offset }. Read-only and spends no quota. Requires a Kamy API key with the signatures:read scope; without a key, returns dashboard setup instructions.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoPage size, 1–100. Default 50.
offsetNoRows to skip. Default 0.

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description adds value beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false) by explicitly stating 'Read-only and spends no quota.' It also discloses the pagination response format and authentication requirement. 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is fairly long but every sentence adds necessary information: purpose, sibling distinction, data fields, usage in other tools, return format, authentication, and resource cost. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. Could be slightly tighter but not wasteful.

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 (pagination, sibling differentiation, downstream usage), the description is complete. It covers purpose, scope, authentication, quota, output shape, and how to use the results. No output schema exists, but the return structure is described explicitly, so the agent has all necessary context.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for limit and offset. The description adds context by stating the response includes 'limit' and 'offset' (part of the pagination structure), which helps users understand the parameters' role. It also mentions 'newest first' ordering, which is an implicit default behavior not captured 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 clearly states the verb and resource: 'List this account's reusable e-signature presets'. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'list_templates' by explicitly stating that those are document catalogs used by render_pdf, while these are signing presets. It also specifies the data returned (id, name, description, expires_in, cc_emails) and the ordering (newest first).

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives: it contrasts with list_templates for document catalog, suggests get_signature_template for detailed fields, and explains how to use the id in create_signature_request. It also states the required scope (signatures:read) and behavior without a key, making usage conditions clear.

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