Ping (verify auth)
pingRead-only
Verify the API key and connection by pinging Quaderno. Returns account/authentication status. Quaderno API: GET /ping.
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?
With readOnlyHint=true already declaring a safe read, the description adds that the call returns account/authentication status and uses GET /ping. It does not describe error behavior for an invalid key, but for a zero-parameter connectivity check that is a minor omission.
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?
Three short sentences cover purpose, return value, and endpoint with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded and 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?
For a no-parameter, read-only ping tool, the description supplies purpose, return value, and endpoint. With no output schema, 'returns account/authentication status' is enough for an agent to invoke and interpret the call.
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 has no properties, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters requiring clarification. Baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and no further parameter burden falls on the 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 names a specific verb (verify) and resource (API key/connection to Quaderno), and pinpoints the exact endpoint GET /ping. This clearly distinguishes ping from the sibling list_*/get_* tools and the generic quaderno_request.
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?
It gives a clear usage context: use this tool to verify that the API key and connection work. It does not explicitly discuss when not to use it or name an alternative, but the tool's narrow purpose makes the guidance sufficient.
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.