List webhooks
list_webhooksRead-only
List the account's configured webhooks (id, url, events). Quaderno API: GET /webhooks.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
quaderno
by io.usefulapi
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already marks this as a read operation, and the description reinforces that by saying 'List' rather than implying mutation. It adds useful behavioral context by naming the returned fields (id, url, events) and the API endpoint, which is more than the annotation provides.
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 two short sentences with no filler. The verb, resource, and scope are front-loaded, and the API endpoint is clearly referenced without unnecessary detail.
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?
For a parameterless, read-only list operation, the description covers the key facts: what is listed, the returned fields, and the API endpoint. Pagination or ordering details are not essential here, and the readOnly annotation covers the safety profile.
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 tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter details for the description to add. It still provides helpful context about the API endpoint and the fields returned, which compensates for the absence of an output 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?
The description uses a specific verb ('List'), names the exact resource ('webhooks'), and scopes it to the account's configured webhooks with returned fields (id, url, events). This makes it immediately distinguishable from sibling list_* tools that target different resources.
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 intended use is clear: call this when you need to see the account's configured webhooks. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling list tools, but the resource-specific wording makes the correct selection obvious and no exclusion conditions are needed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation3/5
Most tools target distinct resources and actions, but create_invoice and create_transaction both generate tax-compliant sale documents, making their boundary unclear. calculate_tax also overlaps conceptually with the tax calculation embedded in create_transaction, though the descriptions help separate the read-only case.
Naming Consistency4/5
The set follows a consistent verb_noun pattern across get_, list_, create_, and update_ tools, with clear singular/plural usage. calculate_tax and ping fit the style, but quaderno_request is a generic escape hatch that breaks the predictable naming convention.
Tool Count3/5
At 23 tools, the server is on the heavy side and falls in the 16-25 range that feels less scoped than ideal. However, the count is somewhat justified by the many distinct entity types covered, including contacts, invoices, items, credit notes, expenses, receipts, jurisdictions, and webhooks.
Completeness3/5
Core workflows like calculating tax, creating invoices/transactions, and managing contacts/items are covered, and every exposed resource has get/list access. Missing update/delete operations for most resources, read-only webhooks, and no direct creation paths for expenses/receipts/credit notes leave notable lifecycle gaps.