list_packsList every Pokémon TCG Pocket booster pack with its id, parent set id, and localized name. Pack ids identify where a printing can be pulled.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| locale | No | Locale for pack names. Defaults to 'en'. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to restate that this is a safe read. The extra sentence about pack ids identifying pull locations adds useful domain context beyond the structural schema, and the 'every' wording conveys that no filtering or pagination is involved.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, then the returned fields, then the domain context. Every sentence earns its place and no filler exists.
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, parameterless-required read-only list tool, the description covers what is listed, the fields returned, and why pack ids matter. The absence of an output schema is mitigated because the description already names the output fields explicitly.
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?
The sole parameter, locale, is already fully described in the schema including its default value, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to repeat parameter details; the mention of 'localized name' loosely ties the locale parameter to the output but adds little beyond the schema.
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 names a specific verb ('List') and resource ('every Pokémon TCG Pocket booster pack'), and enumerates the returned fields: id, parent set id, and localized name. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishable from sibling tools like list_sets or list_printings.
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?
The description clearly frames the tool as the way to enumerate all booster packs, and adds context that pack ids identify where a printing can be pulled. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but for such a simple read-only list tool the intended use case is clear.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: catalog metadata, search, single-card retrieval, printings, sets, packs, locales, and deck validation/creation/testing/simulation are all cleanly separated. Even the deck-related tools are unambiguous because each targets a different stage: validate, suggest, trial, or matchup.
The vast majority of tools follow a predictable verb_noun pattern (list_sets, get_card, search_cards, simulate_matchup, evaluate_deck). The only outlier is catalog_info, which uses a noun_info form instead of an imperative verb, creating a minor but noticeable deviation.
At 11 tools, the server is well-scoped for its domain of card-catalog lookup and deck analysis. Each tool covers a distinct function and none feel redundant or unnecessary.
The catalog surface is strong with search, get, list, and metadata tools, and the deck workflow covers validation, suggestion, solo trialing, and matchups. Minor gaps exist: search_cards returns at most 20 results with no pagination, and there are no detailed set/pack getters, but agents can work around these with existing tools.