Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
PaperSprocket MCP server

PaperSprocket MCP server

by inde-x
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

check_balance

Retrieve the prepaid balance, currency, and page price for a PaperSprocket account by account ID to verify available funds before rendering PDFs.

Instructions

Check the prepaid balance of the configured PaperSprocket account. Returns account_id, balance_cents, currency, and page_price_cents.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "account_id": "<account_id>"
    },
    "name": "check_balance"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
account_idYesThe PaperSprocket account id to query.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It transparently discloses the return payload (account_id, balance_cents, currency, page_price_cents), which is valuable given there is no output schema, and the read-only nature of a balance check is implied. However, it says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or error behavior.

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?

Two tight sentences, zero waste. The purpose is front-loaded and the return fields follow immediately, making it easy to scan.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a trivial one-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose and return shape adequately. Only peripheral details (auth, error cases) are absent, which is reasonable at this complexity.

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 single parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about the account_id parameter; it actually refers to a 'configured' account, which mildly blurs whether the id is supplied or implicit.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Specific verb+resource: 'Check the prepaid balance of the configured PaperSprocket account.' It also enumerates the returned fields, so an agent knows exactly what it gets. It does not differentiate from the sibling render_html_to_pdf, but that sibling is functionally unrelated, so differentiation is unnecessary.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of alternatives or prerequisites. Usage is only implied by the verb 'check' — an agent must infer that this is the balance-verification tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools