Flash

Delete cards

delete_cards

Destructive

Use this when the user asks to delete specific cards. Takes 1-500 card IDs (from list_cards) with one confirmation for the batch: the first call deletes nothing and returns the exact set and a confirm_token; ask the user once, then repeat the same card_ids with confirm_token. Tokens last ten minutes and survive reconnects; a completed retry returns its original result. For a whole deck use delete_deck; to stop studying a deck but keep it, archive_deck.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`card_ids`	Yes	The cards to delete, 1-500 IDs from list_cards, e.g. [1042, 1043].
`confirm_token`	No	Omit on the first call; pass back the token the first call returned, after the user has confirmed.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`note`	No
`deleted`	Yes
`pending`	Yes
`card_ids`	Yes
`expires_ms`	No
`deck_totals`	Yes
`confirm_token`	No
`cards_affected`	Yes
`decks_affected`	Yes	A deck deletion: the decks that go, by name, the deck first and then the decks under it. Empty for a deletion of cards.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 2, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / card_ids / description

Added value: +"The cards to delete, 1-500 IDs from list_cards, e.g. [1042, 1043]."

addedInput schema / properties / confirm_token / description

Added value: +"Omit on the first call; pass back the token the first call returned,\nafter the user has confirmed."

Changed2 schema fields changedSep 19, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / decks_affected

Added value: +{
+  "description": "A deck deletion: the decks that go, by name, the deck first and\nthen the decks under it. Empty for a deletion of cards.",
+  "items": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}

changedOutput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "deleted",
-  "pending",
-  "cards_affected",
-  "card_ids",
-  "deck_totals"
-]New value: +[
+  "deleted",
+  "pending",
+  "cards_affected",
+  "card_ids",
+  "decks_affected",
+  "deck_totals"
+]

AddedSep 19, 2026

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, and the description goes well beyond that with the two-phase confirmation protocol: first call deletes nothing, returns the set plus a confirm_token, tokens last ten minutes, survive reconnects, and completed retries return their original result. This is exactly the idempotency and safety context an agent needs for a destructive batch operation.

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 dense sentences, all front-loaded: purpose first, then the confirmation mechanics, then sibling routing. Every sentence carries unique operational information and none is wasted.

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 formatting needn't be explained, yet the description still usefully notes what the first call returns (the exact set and confirm_token). Combined with the token lifetime and retry semantics, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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% and correctly describes both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds procedural meaning the schema lacks: the two calls must carry the same card_ids, and confirm_token must be passed back only after the user confirms once for the batch.

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 and resource ('delete specific cards') and explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings delete_deck and archive_deck. An agent can route correctly without opening any schema.

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?

The first sentence gives the when ('user asks to delete specific cards') and the last names the alternatives with their selecting conditions: delete_deck for a whole deck, archive_deck to stop studying but keep it. Nothing is left to inference.

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.