Skip to main content
Glama

Kamy

by dev.kamy

Update a template draft

update_template

Edit an existing custom template's DRAFT — name, html, css, schema, tags, visibility — addressed by UUID or slug. Only the fields you pass are changed. Crucially, this does not change what renders once the template has been published even once: while published_version is set, render_pdf serves that frozen snapshot and your edits stay invisible until publish_template moves the pointer, so an edit that appears to do nothing usually needs a publish. System templates, and templates belonging to another account, return 403. Requires a Kamy API key with the templates:write scope; without a key, returns dashboard setup instructions.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cssNoReplaces the draft CSS entirely.
htmlNoReplaces the draft HTML entirely.
nameNo
tagsNo
schemaNoReplaces the draft JSON Schema entirely.
isPublicNo
templateYesTemplate UUID or slug. This route accepts either.
descriptionNo

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and the description goes far beyond that, disclosing the crucial freeze/publish behavior, 403 conditions, and auth requirements. This provides essential behavioral context not inferred from annotations alone.

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 dense but efficient, front-loading the core purpose and then adding behavioral nuance. It is slightly long due to necessary detail, but every sentence earns its place with no fluff.

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 8 parameters, 50% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations beyond basic flags, the description covers the tool's behavior well. It explains the draft/publish lifecycle and error conditions. Minor gap: no mention of return value or side effects (e.g., no destruction, but destructiveHint=false already covers that).

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 50% (4 of 8 parameters have descriptions). The description adds value by summarizing the updatable fields and stating 'Only the fields you pass are changed,' but does not explain the template field format beyond what the schema says, and some params like isPublic and tags lack description in both schema and description.

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 uses a specific verb ('Edit') and resource ('custom template's DRAFT'), listing the editable fields and addressing mechanism. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like publish_template and create_template by noting that edits remain invisible until published.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Edit an existing custom template's DRAFT') and what it does not do ('does not change what renders once published'), with a clear alternative: 'needs a publish.' It also covers prerequisites and restrictions (system templates, other accounts, API key scope).

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