Skip to main content
Glama

Kamy

by dev.kamy

Upload an asset

upload_file

Store an image, font or PDF in the account's asset bucket and get back a kamy://asset/<id> reference you can drop anywhere inside a render_pdf / render_html data payload — Kamy swaps it for a fresh signed URL at render time. That reference is the point of this tool: it is how a logo, signature image or custom font gets into a template without hosting it yourself. Pass contentBase64 and this server performs the upload for you, returning { id, assetRef, bytes, uploaded: true }. Omit contentBase64 for files too big to pass through a tool call and you get the raw slot instead — { uploadUrl, uploadMethod, uploadHeaders, expiresAt, uploaded: false } — then PUT the bytes yourself within 15 minutes. Inline uploads are capped at 5 MB here; the API itself allows 100 MB via that URL. Only the listed MIME types are accepted. Requires a Kamy API key with the uploads:write scope; without a key, returns dashboard setup instructions.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
filenameYesName to store the asset under. Characters outside [A-Za-z0-9._-] are replaced with '_'.
sizeBytesNoDeclared size in bytes. Computed automatically when contentBase64 is supplied. Max 100 MB.
contentTypeYesMIME type. The API rejects anything outside this list.
contentBase64NoBase64 bytes to upload. When supplied, this server PUTs them to the pre-signed URL and the asset is immediately usable. Omit for files too large to pass through a tool call — you then get uploadUrl back and PUT the bytes yourself within 15 minutes.

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: false) indicate a write operation but not destructive. The description adds rich behavioral context: two upload modes, 15-minute expiry for deferred uploads, size caps, MIME restrictions, and authentication requirement. No contradiction 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.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single coherent paragraph that front-loads the purpose, then systematically covers the two modes, limits, and requirements. Every sentence provides essential information without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's 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?

Given the tool's complexity (two modes, auth, size caps, MIME list, return values), the description covers all critical aspects. It even describes both return formats and what happens when the API key is missing. No output schema exists, but the description fully compensates by detailing the response structure.

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?

The input schema covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds significant behavioral value by explaining the dual-mode behavior of contentBase64 and the filename replacement rule, which goes beyond the schema descriptions. However, it does not add entirely new parameter meaning for all params.

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 explicitly states the tool stores an image, font, or PDF into an asset bucket and returns a kamy://asset/<id> reference. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools (e.g., render_pdf) by explaining that the reference is used inside render payloads.

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 two clear usage paths: inline upload with contentBase64 or deferred upload by omitting it. It specifies MIME type restrictions, file size limits (5 MB inline, 100 MB via URL), and API key scope requirement. It also implies when to use this tool (to get assets into templates) versus alternatives (the render tools themselves).

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