Skip to main content
Glama

Flash

by com.flashmemorize
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Get limits

get_limits
Read-only

Use this when the user asks how many new cards or reviews they get per day, or why a session stopped while cards remain. Shows today's study limits: the account defaults (new cards per day, max reviews per day, any extra new cards granted today) and every deck's override (null = inherits) with how many new and due cards it can still serve today.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
decksYes
accountYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedOutput schema / $defs / DeckLimitsOut / properties / goal
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "$ref": "#/$defs/GoalOut"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "description": "Present when the deck has a goal date: while it is ahead, the\ngoal's pace stands in for new_per_day."
+}
    • addedOutput schema / $defs / GoalOut
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "A deck's goal date and how the deck stands toward it, over the deck\nand its subdecks.",
+  "properties": {
+    "behind_by": {
+      "description": "New cards behind that plan; studying that many more today catches up.",
+      "format": "uint32",
+      "minimum": 0,
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "date": {
+      "description": "The date, YYYY-MM-DD, on the user's calendar.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "days_left": {
+      "description": "Days until it: 0 on the day, negative once it has passed.",
+      "format": "int64",
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "learned": {
+      "description": "Cards past their first learning steps.",
+      "format": "uint32",
+      "minimum": 0,
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "new_per_day": {
+      "description": "New cards a day until the last days before the date, which are kept\nfor review; null on the day and after.",
+      "format": "uint32",
+      "minimum": 0,
+      "type": [
+        "integer",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "on_track": {
+      "description": "Keeping to the plan made when the date was set.",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "passed": {
+      "description": "The date has passed; the deck is studied as any other again.",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "total": {
+      "description": "Cards in the deck and its subdecks.",
+      "format": "uint32",
+      "minimum": 0,
+      "type": "integer"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "date",
+    "days_left",
+    "passed",
+    "on_track",
+    "behind_by",
+    "learned",
+    "total"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful semantics beyond that: the 'null = inherits' encoding for deck overrides and the fact that values reflect remaining capacity for today, which an agent wouldn't infer from annotations alone.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the trigger and then the payload. The second sentence is dense but every clause (defaults, extra cards, overrides, null=inherits, remaining counts) earns its place; slightly long single sentence but well organized.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Complete enough for a zero-arg read tool with an output schema: trigger, scope (today), and the shape of the result are all described. Since an output schema exists, it needn't detail exact field names, and it doesn't over-promise.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; the description correctly implies no input is needed beyond the implicit 'today' scope. Nothing to document, and it doesn't waste words on parameters.

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 (shows today's study limits) and enumerates exactly what is returned: account defaults and per-deck overrides with remaining new/due counts. Clearly distinct from the mutating sibling set_limits.

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?

Opens with explicit trigger conditions: 'when the user asks how many new cards or reviews they get per day, or why a session stopped while cards remain.' That is clear context for when to invoke. It doesn't explicitly name set_limits as the write counterpart or state exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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

All Flash toolsInspect
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.

Resources