Skip to main content
Glama

Kamy

by dev.kamy

Render template to HTML

render_html

Compile a Kamy template — or raw Handlebars source you pass inline — against a data payload and get the rendered HTML string back. No browser runs, no PDF is produced and no file is stored, so this is the tool for piping a template into a transactional email provider, or for inspecting the markup before committing to render_pdf. Use render_pdf instead whenever the output has to be a paginated, printable artifact. Supply exactly one of template or html. Returns { format: 'html', html, bytes }. Paid-tier system templates are refused on the free plan. Counts one render against the monthly quota, since the compile step is the shared cost. Requires a Kamy API key with the render scope; without a key, returns dashboard setup instructions.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataNoValues substituted into the template's Handlebars expressions.
htmlNoRaw Handlebars/HTML source to compile instead of a stored template. Supply exactly one of template or html.
templateNoTemplate slug or UUID — a Kamy system template or one of your own. Supply exactly one of template or html.
directionNoForce the document's lang/dir attributes for RTL/bidi mail clients. 'auto' (default) leaves the template's own <html lang> untouched.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already give readOnlyHint=false (mutation), destructiveHint=false, so description adds meaningful context: returns specific format object, counts against monthly quota, requires api key with 'render' scope, and mentions refusal of paid-tier templates on free plan. 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?

Description is front-loaded with core compile action, then scoping constraints, then alternatives, then output, then edge cases. Each sentence serves a purpose; no fluff. Could be slightly tighter by moving quota info later, but still efficient for length.

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 4 parameters with 100% schema coverage, no output schema needed due to clear return format described, and sibling tools providing context, the description covers purpose, usage, constraints, auth, quotas, and output shape completely. No gaps remain.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the template vs html mutual exclusivity, but does not add new details about direction or data param beyond what schema already states. Adequate but does not substantially extend schema information.

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?

Description specifies verb 'compile' and resource 'Kamy template or raw Handlebars source', clearly distinguishes the output (HTML string) from sibling tools like render_pdf by explicitly stating 'no PDF is produced and no file is stored'. It also differentiates from render_docx, render_pptx, render_xlsx by focusing on HTML output.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use this tool (piping into transactional email, inspecting markup) and when not to ('use render_pdf instead whenever the output has to be a paginated, printable artifact'). Also gives precise condition for 'Supplies exactly one of template or html' with constraint details.

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