Skip to main content
Glama

Flash

by com.flashmemorize
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

list_decks

Read-only

List the user's decks with due and new card counts. A name is a path: Parent::Child is a subdeck of Parent, and each deck is followed by its subdecks. A deck's counts already include its subdecks, so never add rows up. An archived deck keeps its place, with archived: true and zero counts.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
noteNoPresent only when the account has no cards at all: what to offer.
decksYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedOutput schema / properties / note
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Present only when the account has no cards at all: what to offer.",
+  "type": [
+    "string",
+    "null"
+  ]
+}
  2. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedOutput schema / $defs / DeckOut / properties / archived
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Archived: kept whole but out of study; its counts are zero.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
    • changedOutput schema / $defs / DeckOut / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "name",
-  "due",
-  "new"
-]New value: +[
+  "name",
+  "due",
+  "new",
+  "archived"
+]
  3. 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 a safe read (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the safety bar is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the 'Parent::Child' path naming convention, the ordering rule that each deck is followed by its subdecks, and that archived decks remain in place with archived: true and zero counts.

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?

Three sentences, each carrying distinct information: what is returned, the naming/hierarchy convention, and the aggregation warning plus archived-deck handling. The core purpose is front-loaded and no sentence is padding.

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-value documentation is not required, yet the description covers the non-obvious semantics an agent needs (path-based names, subdecks included in parent counts, archived deck representation). Nothing essential for correct invocation or interpretation is missing.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to document beyond the baseline. The description instead spends its words on output semantics, which is the right tradeoff for a no-arg tool.

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 ('List the user's decks') plus the payload it returns ('due and new card counts'), which is materially different from the sibling listers list_cards and list_tags. An agent can identify the right tool without opening the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied rather than stated: it is the enumeration tool for decks, and the warning 'never add rows up' guides interpretation of results. However, it never states when to prefer this over alternatives like list_cards or when-not to call it, so there is no explicit alternative routing.

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