Skip to main content
Glama

Kamy

by dev.kamy

Remind a signer or an envelope

remind_signature

Resend the signature invitation email. Pass signatureRequestId to nudge one signer, or envelopeId to nudge every currently-pending recipient of an envelope — supply exactly one; there is no separate envelope-reminder tool. This sends real email to third parties. Each recipient is capped at one reminder per hour: the single-request form returns 429 REMIND_TOO_SOON with a Retry-After header, while the envelope form silently skips capped recipients and reports skipped_reason per row, so read the per-recipient results rather than assuming everyone was mailed. Only pending recipients are reminded — signed, voided and expired requests return 409, and sequential recipients still in 'waiting' are skipped because it is not their turn. A manual nudge also counts toward the three-reminder auto-cadence cap. Requires a Kamy API key with the signatures:write scope; without a key, returns dashboard setup instructions.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
envelopeIdNoNudge every currently-pending recipient of this envelope. Supply exactly one of signatureRequestId or envelopeId.
signatureRequestIdNoNudge this one signer. Supply exactly one of signatureRequestId or envelopeId.

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations (non-readonly, open world, non-destructive), the description explains that this sends real email to third parties, discloses the one-per-hour cap and the silent skipping behavior for envelope-level nudges, and warns that a manual nudge counts toward the auto-cadence cap. Also mentions auth scope requirements. 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 relatively compact for the amount of information it covers (5 sentences). It is front-loaded with the core action. However, it packs a lot of edge cases and behavior into a single paragraph, which could be segmented for clarity.

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 2 simple parameters, no output schema, and critical real-world consequences (email sending, rate limits, silent skipping), the description covers all necessary behavioral aspects: who gets reminded, who gets skipped, error conditions, rate limit handling, and auth requirements. It leaves no obvious gaps.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the exclusivity constraint ('supply exactly one') and the behavioral difference between the two parameters (single signer vs. all pending). However, the schema already provides a description for each parameter, so the added value is moderate.

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 starts with 'Resend the signature invitation email' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It clearly distinguishes itself by noting that pass a single parameter (envelopeId or signatureRequestId) to nudge either a single signer or an entire envelope, and explicitly states there is no separate envelope-reminder tool.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: pass signatureRequestId for one signer, envelopeId for all pending recipients. Also details exclusions: only pending recipients are reminded, signed/voided/expired return 409, sequential recipients still waiting are skipped. Mentions rate limits and how to handle them (read per-recipient results).

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