Flash

Create deck

create_deck

Use this when the user asks for an empty deck to fill later, or to set up a structure of decks. Creates a new deck; name it Parent::Child to make a subdeck, and missing parents are created too. Not needed before adding cards, since create_cards creates its deck. When the user is studying for a date (an exam, a test, a deadline), pass goal_date. Refused if a deck with that name already exists.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	The deck's full name, e.g. "Biology" or "Biology::Cell cycle" for a subdeck.
`goal_date`	No	Optional: the date the user needs to know this deck by (an exam, a test, a trip, a deadline), YYYY-MM-DD on their calendar. Flash then spreads the deck's new cards so all are learned before it and brings back, in the last days, the cards that need it.
`languages`	No	The languages the deck's cards are in, most used first, by ISO 639-1 code ("ja", "en").
`description`	No	Optional: what the deck covers, in a sentence.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`created`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 17, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / goal_date

Added value: +{
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "Optional: the date the user needs to know this deck by (an exam, a test, a trip, a deadline), YYYY-MM-DD on their calendar. Flash then spreads the deck's new cards so all are learned before it and brings back, in the last days, the cards that need it.",
+  "type": [
+    "string",
+    "null"
+  ]
+}

Changed1 schema field changedOct 16, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / languages

Added value: +{
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "The languages the deck's cards are in, most used first, by ISO 639-1 code (\"ja\", \"en\").",
+  "items": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": [
+    "array",
+    "null"
+  ]
+}

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 2, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / description / description

Added value: +"Optional: what the deck covers, in a sentence."

addedInput schema / properties / name / description

Added value: +"The deck's full name, e.g. \"Biology\" or \"Biology::Cell cycle\" for a\nsubdeck."

First observedSep 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations cover only the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false); the description goes well beyond by disclosing that missing parents are auto-created, that Parent::Child syntax creates subdecks, and that creation is refused on duplicate names. These are non-obvious behaviors an agent must know before calling.

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?

Four sentence-fragments, all front-loaded: purpose, then naming/subdeck mechanics, then the create_cards exclusion, then goal_date, then the refusal condition. No filler and nothing redundant.

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

Completeness5/5

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

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation. The description covers the failure mode (duplicate refusal), the naming convention, parent auto-creation, and the goal_date trigger, which is everything needed to invoke this tool confidently.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds actionable naming syntax (Parent::Child) and the conditional rule for goal_date ('when the user is studying for a date... pass goal_date') that an agent must apply at selection time. It does not add anything for languages or description, keeping it short of a 5.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb+resource ('Creates a new deck') and immediately disambiguates from the sibling create_cards ('Not needed before adding cards, since create_cards creates its deck'). Also distinguishes its subdeck/parent-creation capability, which no other sibling offers.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicit when-to-use ('when the user asks for an empty deck to fill later, or to set up a structure of decks'), explicit when-not ('Not needed before adding cards'), and names the alternative tool. Also gives a conditional rule for goal_date.

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

All Flash tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.