Skip to main content
Glama

Kamy

by dev.kamy

Preview signature field placement

preview_field_placement
Read-only

Check a placedFields layout against a real render's page geometry before anything is sent: no signature request is created, no email goes out, and no signature quota is spent. It accepts exactly what create_signature_request accepts — all seven field types, options, and anchor-positioned fields — so anything that previews clean will send. Returns each page's true width and height, so a sender UI can draw a preview at the right aspect ratio, plus per field valid / issues / the resolved coordinates the request would actually be stored with, after sourcePage scaling and anchor substitution. Issues are PAGE_OUT_OF_RANGE, OFF_PAGE_RIGHT, OFF_PAGE_TOP, DUPLICATE_NAME, ANCHOR_NOT_FOUND (the anchor text is not on that page, so the field falls back to the raw x/y) and OPTIONS_REQUIRED. None of these make create_signature_request fail — that is the point of checking here, because a field that lands off the page is accepted and emailed. The source render must have status 'success'; if its PDF has aged out of storage the call returns 410 and the fix is to re-render. Read-only. Requires a Kamy API key with the signatures:read scope; without a key, returns dashboard setup instructions.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
renderIdYesRender UUID whose real page sizes the fields are checked against.
placedFieldsYesUp to 100 fields to validate. Exactly the shape create_signature_request takes — same seven types, same `anchor` and `options` support — so a layout that previews clean is a layout that sends.

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint), the description discloses key behaviors: no signature request is created, no email is sent, no quota is spent. It details what the tool returns (page dimensions, per-field validity, issues list with specific issue types) and what happens when the render PDF has aged out (410 error). The anchor-fallback behavior (silent fallback to raw x/y if anchor text not found) is explicitly described, adding substantial behavioral context beyond 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 front-loaded with the essential purpose in the first sentence. Every subsequent sentence adds relevant detail: what the tool does not do, what it returns, edge cases (410, anchor behavior), prerequisites, and auth requirements. No filler or redundancy – each piece earns its place. The structure is logical and easy to parse.

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 moderate complexity (2 params, no output schema, but annotations present), the description covers all key aspects: purpose, return values (page dimensions, issues list), prerequisites (render status), error handling (410), behavioral nuances (anchor fallback), and authorization. The lack of output schema is fully compensated by the detailed description of what the tool returns. It leaves no critical gaps for an agent to misinterpret.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by contextualizing the parameters: 'It accepts exactly what create_signature_request accepts — all seven field types, options, and anchor-positioned fields' and 'so anything that prewiews clean will send.' It also explains how the parameters relate to the validation flow and what the returned issues mean. This goes beyond mere parameter repetition, earning a 4.

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 a clear verb-resource pair: 'Check a placedFields layout against a real render's page geometry before anything is sent.' It explicitly states what the tool does (preview/validate) and which resource it operates on (placedFields layout + render page geometry). It distinguishes itself from create_signature_request by noting that no signature request, email, or quota is spent during preview.

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: before sending a signature request ('anything that prewiews clean will send'). It explains that issues like ANCHOR_NOT_FOUND or OFF_PAGE are not failures in create_signature_request but are caught here. It also states a prerequisite ('The source render must have status success') and how to handle a 410 error (re-render). Authorization requirements (Kamy API key with signatures:read scope) are also specified, giving clear usage boundaries.

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