Skip to main content
Glama

Kamy

by dev.kamy

Render Word document

render_docx

Render an editable Word (.docx) document from a Kamy template and data. Takes the same { template, data } payload as render_pdf but produces a different container — reach for it when the recipient has to EDIT the document (legal redlines, Word-based intake, corporate templates) rather than receive a fixed artifact. Only five slugs have a Word implementation — invoice, receipt, quote, contract, agreement — and any other template is rejected with a validation error; use render_pdf for those. Returns { id, url, bytes, durationMs, format: 'docx' }, where url is a signed download link valid for one hour and id is a normal render id. Counts one render against the monthly quota. Requires a Kamy API key with the render scope; without a key, returns dashboard setup instructions.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataNoTemplate data, identical in shape to the render_pdf payload for the same slug — call get_template_schema first to get the exact fields.
nameNoLabel stored on the render row so the document is identifiable in the dashboard.
templateYesWhich built-in document to build. These five are the only slugs with a Word implementation; custom templates and other system templates are PDF-only (use render_pdf).

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint false and destructiveHint false, so the description's disclosure of non-destructive behavior (render, counts quota, requires API key) adds marginal value. However, it goes beyond annotations by specifying the signed URL expiry (one hour), return format details, quota counting, and authentication requirements. One point off because the annotation 'openWorldHint: false' is not contradicted, but the description doesn't explicitly address whether the tool has side effects beyond rendering.

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?

Earned: the three-sentence description is tightly packed with essential information—purpose, sibling differentiation, slug limitations, return structure, quota, auth requirements. Every sentence adds unique value; no filler or repetition.

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?

Given the tool has three parameters (1 required), 100% schema coverage, and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly complete. It explains the return format, quota, auth, and template restrictions. One point off because there is no output schema to assist with return-field types, and the description omits the expected HTTP response codes or potential errors (beyond validation).

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (template, data, name) with their constraints and basics. The description adds meaning by mapping the payload shape to render_pdf and advising to use get_template_schema for exact fields, but does not add syntax details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool renders an editable .docx document from a Kamy template and data, using a specific verb ('Render') and resource ('Word document'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling render_pdf by noting the different output container and use case, and it explicitly lists the five supported slugs (invoice, receipt, quote, contract, agreement), leaving no ambiguity.

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 ('recipient has to EDIT the document') versus when not to ('use render_pdf for those' rejected templates). It names the sibling render_pdf directly as an alternative, and explains the limitation to five slugs with a rejection fallback, leaving no guesswork for the agent.

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