quaderno_requestPower-user escape hatch: GET any Quaderno API path not wrapped by a dedicated tool. READ-ONLY — only GET is allowed. Path is taken after /api (e.g. "/tax_ids", "/evidence"). Quaderno API: GET {path}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | API path after /api, starting with a slash, e.g. "/tax_ids". | |
| query | No | Optional query params object. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes the read-only nature; the description adds that only GET is allowed and that paths are taken after /api. It does not cover response format, error behavior, or rate limits, but the annotation lowers the burden and there is no contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three short sentences with no filler. Purpose, restriction, and path convention are all front-loaded and immediately actionable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple raw GET tool with complete parameter coverage and a readOnlyHint annotation, the description is sufficient to guide invocation. The only minor gap is not explicitly describing the response shape, but no output schema exists and the 'raw read request' framing largely implies it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the path format with examples and the GET {path} pattern, but it does not add substantial meaning beyond the schema for the query parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific operation: GET any Quaderno API path not wrapped by a dedicated tool. It clearly identifies itself as an escape hatch and distinguishes itself from the many sibling tools by scoping to paths without a dedicated wrapper.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It explicitly says when to use this tool: when a path is 'not wrapped by a dedicated tool.' It also labels itself a 'power-user escape hatch,' implying dedicated siblings should be preferred for covered paths, and reinforces that only GET is allowed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
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.
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.
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.
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.