Skip to main content
Glama

Kamy

by dev.kamy

Roll a template back to an earlier version

rollback_template
Destructive

Revert a template after a bad release: repoints published_version at the version you name, so every subsequent render immediately serves that snapshot again. Prefer this over publish_template's version argument whenever you are reverting, because only this tool takes expectedPublishedVersion — an optimistic fence that rejects with 409 VERSION_CONFLICT if someone moved the pointer since you read it — and only this tool can restore the working draft too. restoreDraft: true overwrites the draft html/css/schema with that version's content, auto-snapshotting the existing draft into a fresh version first so unsaved work is recoverable; it defaults to false. Destructive: it changes what production renders, and there is no undo beyond rolling forward again. Takes a template UUID or slug. Requires a Kamy API key with the templates:write scope; without a key, returns dashboard setup instructions.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
versionYesThe known-good version to make live again. Get it from list_template_versions.
templateIdYesTemplate UUID or slug — every /v1/templates route resolves either.
restoreDraftNoWhen true, also overwrite the working draft (html/css/schema) with that version's content. The current draft is auto-snapshotted into a new version first, unless it is already byte-identical. Defaults to false, which leaves in-flight edits alone.
expectedPublishedVersionNoOptimistic fence: the published_version you believe is live (0 if never published). The call is rejected with 409 VERSION_CONFLICT if someone moved the pointer in the meantime. Pass it whenever you read the state in an earlier step.

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds meaningful context: 'no undo beyond rolling forward again', the draft snapshotting behavior, and the 409 conflict mechanism. It clearly discloses what gets changed and the safety net for drafts.

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?

Somewhat long, but each sentence adds functional or safety information. Front-loaded with the core purpose, then alternative guidance, then param details. No redundant filler; minor length is justified by complexity.

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?

Covers all key aspects: what it does, when to use, destructive impact, auth, parameter nuances, and concurrency safety. Despite no output schema, the description gives enough context to select and invoke correctly. The inclusion of a fallback behavior (dashboard instructions) is a nice touch.

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 covers all parameters at 100%, but description adds value by explaining the practical semantics of restoreDraft (auto-snapshotting, byte-identical check) and expectedPublishedVersion (optimistic fence). It clarifies edge-case behavior not spelled out in 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?

Clear verb ('revert') and resource ('template') with explicit effect: 'repoints published_version at the version you name'. Distinguishes itself from publish_template by explaining the unique rollback behavior and draft restoration.

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: 'Prefer this over publish_template's version argument whenever you are reverting', and reasons why (optimistic fence and draft restore). Also mentions auth requirement and fallback behavior without a key.

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