Skip to main content
Glama

Kamy

by dev.kamy

Verify attestation

verify_attestation
Read-only

Ask Kamy whether a SHA-256 digest has an attestation on record — the tool that actually returns a verdict. Takes a digest, not a file: if what you hold is a PDF, run verify_pdf_signature over the bytes first and pass the sha256 it gives you. A match returns { verified: true, artifact_type, recorded_at, signature, public_key }. A false result means no attestation exists for those exact bytes, which happens both when content was altered after attestation and when it was simply never attested; it does not by itself identify tampering or a culprit. Public surface — like the extract_document verify URL, no API key is required, so a recipient can confirm an artifact independently of whoever sent it.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
hashYesSHA-256 of the artifact you want to check, as hex. Hash the bytes you actually hold — if they were modified after attestation, the digest won't match any record and `verified` comes back false.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds substantial behavioral context: the exact return fields (verified, artifact_type, etc.), interpretation of false results, and the public nature of the endpoint. 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 concise at about 5 sentences, front-loading the core purpose. Every sentence adds meaningful information: purpose, input format, workflow, result interpretation, and public access. No unnecessary words 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (single parameter, no output schema), the description is remarkably complete. It covers input preprocessing, output fields, result semantics, and access context. The sibling tool verify_pdf_signature is referenced for the correct workflow. No major gaps.

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 a clear description of the hash parameter. The description adds value by explaining that it takes a digest (not a file) and providing preprocessing guidance for PDFs. This extra context goes beyond the schema's own 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Ask Kamy whether a SHA-256 digest has an attestation on record' using a specific verb-resource combination. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly contrasting with verify_pdf_signature and noting that it returns a verdict, unlike ask_kamy which is a general Q&A tool.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit guidance: if you have a PDF, run verify_pdf_signature first and pass the resulting SHA-256. It explains what a false result means and that the tool is public, requiring no API key. It does not explicitly list alternatives or when to use ask_kamy instead, but the context is sufficient for correct usage.

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