switch_deckChange the active deck within an entered container.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| handle | Yes | Deck handle to switch to e.g. research, writing — or the container-context handle to return to the top scope | |
| contract | No | Help mode — return the complete contract with no operation performed. | |
| container_id | No | Container ID — required when user has multiple containers |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / contract / descriptionPrevious value: -"Help mode — pass true to receive this tool's full _meta.contract (all variants) with NO operation performed."New value: +"Help mode — return the complete contract with no operation performed."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which aligns with a state-changing operation. The description adds minimal behavioral detail beyond stating the action, lacking any mention of side effects or return values.
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 a single, direct sentence with no redundant wording. It is highly concise and well-structured, containing only the essential information.
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 mutation tool, the description adequately explains the core operation. It does not explain expected return values or edge cases, but given the lack of an output schema and the tool's straightforward nature, the information is sufficient for basic usage.
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?
All three parameters have descriptions in the schema, covering 'handle', 'contract' (help mode), and 'container_id'. The descriptions are concise but sufficiently clarify each parameter's purpose, exceeding the baseline for full schema coverage.
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 clearly states the action (change) and the resource (active deck within a container). It is distinct from sibling tools like load_deck or read_deck, though the term 'entered container' is slightly ambiguous without additional context.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like load_deck or read_deck. The description does not mention prerequisites or scenarios where switching decks is appropriate or inappropriate.
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.