Skip to main content
Glama

quaderno

by io.usefulapi

Create a transaction

create_transaction
Destructive

MUTATES Quaderno data — record a sale or refund transaction (Quaderno computes tax and produces the compliant document). Provide the customer, items, and payment. Use fields for any other attribute (date, currency, shipping_address, evidence, processor, processor_id, processor_fee_cents, exchange_rate, po_number, notes, tags, custom_metadata). Quaderno API: POST /transactions. Returns the created invoice/credit-note object.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeNoTransaction type (default "sale").
itemsYesRequired. Transaction line items, e.g. [{ description, amount, quantity, tax_code, product_type }].
fieldsNoAdditional raw Quaderno fields merged into the request body (escape hatch for any field not typed above).
paymentNoPayment object, e.g. { payment_method, amount, date }.
currencyNoISO 4217 currency code.
customerNoThe customer contact object (or reference), e.g. { first_name, last_name, email, country, tax_id }.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, and the description reinforces this by starting with 'MUTATES Quaderno data'. It adds useful behavioral context: tax computation, compliant document generation, the POST /transactions endpoint, and the return type. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three sentences and front-loads the mutation warning before details. The long list of field names is useful despite adding length, and there is no redundant filler.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The description covers the return type, which is important since there is no output schema. However, it overstates requirements by saying to provide customer, items, and payment while the schema only requires items, and the currency-in-fields guidance is inconsistent with the schema.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds valuable examples for items, payment, customer, and lists many attribute names that can go through fields. However, it tells users to put currency into fields even though currency is already a top-level typed parameter, which is mildly misleading.

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?

The description clearly states the action: record a sale or refund transaction in Quaderno. It also adds distinct context by explaining that Quaderno computes tax and produces a compliant document, which sets it apart from generic CRUD tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling create_invoice.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage for sale/refund transactions and tells the agent what to provide (customer, items, payment). However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over create_invoice or other siblings, and the mention that it returns an invoice/credit-note object could blur the line with create_invoice.

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

All quaderno 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

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.

Resources