Skip to main content
Glama

Kamy

by dev.kamy

Render Excel workbook

render_xlsx

Build an Excel (.xlsx) workbook from a sheet spec: columns with keys, row objects keyed to those columns, optional Excel number formats and a formula-aware total row (bare 'SUM' / 'AVG' / 'COUNT' / 'MIN' / 'MAX' expands into a real formula over the column's data range). Choose this over render_pdf when the recipient will sort, filter or recompute the numbers, and over render_docx when the content is tabular rather than prose. Returns a stored render { id, url, bytes, durationMs, format } where url is a signed download link valid for one hour; the workbook is a .xlsx, so feed the id to convert_document if the next step needs a PDF. Header rows are always bold on a tinted fill — there is no flag for it. 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
titleNoWorkbook title — document metadata and the returned filename stem.
sheetsYesOne or more sheets, in tab order.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the description carries the burden. It discloses: authentication requirement (Kamy API key with `render` scope), quota counting, signed URL expiry (1 hour), and the formula-expansion behavior for totalRow. It also notes that header rows are always bold/tinted with no flag. Missing: rate limits, error handling, or what happens if quota is exceeded. Still strong, but not exhaustive.

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?

Two compact paragraphs. The first sentence immediately states the core purpose. Subsequent sentences add details, usage guidance, return format, and behavioral notes in logical order. Every sentence earns its place; no fluff or repetition.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description fully describes the return object (id, url, bytes, durationMs, format) and the signed link validity. It covers authentication, quota, and formula behavior. The sibling set is large, but the description clearly differentiates from the two most similar tools. No gaps in guidance for a typical agent invoking this tool.

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% with good descriptions, but the description adds significant value: it explains the formula-expansion mechanism ('bare 'SUM' / 'AVG' / 'COUNT' / 'MIN' / 'MAX' expands into a real formula'), the behavior of strings starting with '=', and the literal fallback. It also clarifies that header styling is automatic. This goes beyond the schema's basic property descriptions.

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, specific verb ('Build an Excel (.xlsx) workbook') and defines the resource as a sheet spec with columns, rows, number formats, and a formula-aware total row. It distinguishes itself from siblings render_pdf and render_docx, explaining exactly when each alternative is appropriate.

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 states when to use this tool over render_pdf ('when the recipient will sort, filter or recompute the numbers') and over render_docx ('when the content is tabular rather than prose'). Also provides guidance on chaining: 'feed the id to convert_document if the next step needs a PDF.' No ambiguity.

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