panel_cardsUsed by Flash's panel only; never call it yourself (use list_cards). Returns more of the cards the panel is paging through, both sides.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| card_ids | Yes | Up to 20 of the card_ids the panel was given. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cards | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / $defs / PanelShownCard / properties / back_langAdded value: +{
+ "type": "string"
+}Output schema / $defs / PanelShownCard / properties / front_langAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Each side's language, for its `lang`; absent when nothing says it.",
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious context: this is a panel-internal paging call that returns 'both sides' of the cards. It doesn't describe pagination limits or termination behavior, but the added scope context is real.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence that front-loads the most important constraint (never call it yourself) before describing the return. Zero wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter, panel-internal tool with an output schema and full schema coverage, the description supplies everything an agent needs: who may call it, what it returns, and which sibling to use instead.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single card_ids parameter documented as 'Up to 20 of the card_ids the panel was given.' The description implies those ids come from the panel's paging context but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource — 'Returns more of the cards the panel is paging through' — and explicitly contrasts it with the sibling list_cards. An agent can distinguish it from the other card-listing tools without opening a schema.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicit when/when-not guidance: 'Used by Flash's panel only; never call it yourself (use list_cards).' Names the correct alternative and the exclusion condition outright, leaving nothing to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.