Flash

delete_cards

Destructive

Delete 1-500 explicit card IDs with one confirmation for the batch. First call returns the exact set and confirm_token, deleting nothing. Ask the user once; after approval repeat the same card_ids with confirm_token. Tokens last ten minutes and survive reconnects. A completed retry returns its original result.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`card_ids`	Yes
`confirm_token`	No

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 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

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, and the description adds substantial detail: the first call deletes nothing, tokens expire in ten minutes and survive reconnects, and completed retries return their original result. This is exactly the behavioral context needed beyond the annotations.

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?

Five short sentences, all carrying essential information. The core action and batch limit are front-loaded, followed by the confirmation protocol and token lifecycle, with no filler.

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?

For a destructive two-step batch operation, the description covers the complete protocol, safety behavior, token expiration, reconnect survival, and retry semantics. An output schema exists, so omitting return-value details is acceptable.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates fully. It explains card_ids as explicit card IDs in a 1-500 batch and specifies that confirm_token is a returned confirmation token to be resubmitted within ten minutes.

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?

The description opens with 'Delete 1-500 explicit card IDs,' giving a specific verb, resource, and cardinality. This clearly distinguishes the tool from deck-level siblings like delete_deck and archive_deck.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It clearly lays out the intended two-call workflow: first call prepares and returns a token, user approves, then the same card_ids are retried with confirm_token. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the card-ID focus and confirmation flow provide clear context.

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.