Skip to main content
Glama

Kamy

by dev.kamy

Publish a template version

publish_template

Make a template version live for rendering. Called with no version, it snapshots the current draft into a new version and points published_version at it — this is how you ship an edit made with update_template. Called with an existing version, it republishes that earlier snapshot and leaves the draft alone. Reach for rollback_template instead when you are reverting a bad release: only that tool offers the concurrency fence and the option to restore the draft as well. Takes a template UUID or slug, same as every other /v1/templates route. Returns { templateId, publishedVersion, publishedVersionId, latestVersion, publishedAt }. Requires a Kamy API key with the templates:write scope; without a key, returns dashboard setup instructions.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
versionNoOmit to snapshot the current draft into a new version and publish that. Supply an existing version number to republish a known-good earlier snapshot, leaving the draft untouched.
templateIdYesTemplate UUID or slug — every /v1/templates route resolves either.

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations are present (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) but minimal. The description adds significant behavioral context: the two mutation modes, the return shape, and the auth requirement. No contradiction with annotations. The description fully explains the tool's behavior beyond what annotations provide.

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 five sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and each sentence serves a distinct purpose: main action, two modes, alternative tool, parameter format, return shape, and auth requirement. No redundant or filler content.

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?

For a tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the return shape explicitly, auth requirements, and alternative tool. It lacks error handling details (e.g., what happens if the template doesn't exist or version is invalid), but given the typical complexity of such tools, it is mostly complete.

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% and the schema already describes both parameters well. The description adds value by explaining the two modes of the `version` parameter in natural language, linking it to the `update_template` workflow, and noting that `templateId` accepts a UUID or slug. The extra context is helpful but not extensive 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 the verb 'publish' and object 'template version', and distinguishes two modes: snapshotting the current draft or republishing an existing version. It also explicitly differentiates from the sibling tool rollback_template, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 when-to-use guidance: 'Called with no version, it snapshots the current draft... this is how you ship an edit made with update_template' and 'Reach for rollback_template instead when you are reverting a bad release'. It also mentions that without the proper API key, it returns dashboard setup instructions, effectively guiding the agent on prerequisites.

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