Skip to main content
Glama

Kamy

by dev.kamy

Hash a PDF and build its verify URL

verify_pdf_signature
Read-only

Turn PDF bytes you are holding into their SHA-256 digest and the matching kamy.dev/verify/{sha256} page URL. Purely local: the MCP Worker hashes the base64 in memory, makes no Kamy API call, stores nothing and forwards nothing, so it works with no key and never leaves a trace. Note it returns no verdict — it does not tell you whether the document is genuine, signed, or on record anywhere. It is the first half of a check: take the sha256 it returns and pass it to verify_attestation for the actual yes/no, or hand a person the verify_url to open. Use this whenever you have the file itself; use verify_attestation directly when someone has already given you a digest.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pdfBase64YesBase64-encoded PDF bytes. The MCP Worker hashes the file in-memory and does not store or forward it.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Discloses critical behavioral traits beyond annotations: purely local operation, no Kamy API call, no storage or forwarding, no key required, never leaves a trace. Also clarifies that no verdict is returned. Annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint) are consistent with this description.

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?

Four sentences, each adding value: core purpose, local nature, output limitations, usage guidance. No filler, information front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns (sha256 digest and verify URL) and what it does not (verdict). For a single-parameter, read-only tool, this is complete. Agent has all information needed to use the tool correctly and chain it with verify_attestation.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema description already explains the pdfBase64 parameter clearly. The description adds behavioral context (in-memory hashing, no storage) but does not significantly expand parameter semantics beyond what is in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verbs ('hash', 'build') and resources ('PDF bytes', 'SHA-256 digest', 'verify URL'), clearly distinguishing the tool from siblings like verify_attestation. It states exactly what the tool does and what it does not do.

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 explains when to use this tool ('whenever you have the file itself') and when to use the alternative verify_attestation ('when someone has already given you a digest'). Provides clear sequential guidance for the verification workflow.

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