Fetch full detail for ONE card by exact name or id: oracle text, mana cost, type line, format legalities, and a brief summary of its printings. Use get_card_printings instead when the complete printing list matters (choosing a specific art, set, or finish).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ||
| name | No | ||
| slug | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| card | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context by enumerating the exact output fields (oracle text, mana cost, type line, format legalities, printings summary) and noting the 'exact name or id' constraint. This goes beyond the basic read-only hint.
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?
Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the tool's purpose and result fields, and the second gives a conditional alternative. Every word earns its place.
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?
The description is adequate for a card-detail fetch: it states what data is returned and when to choose a different tool. The presence of an output schema means return structure doesn't need to be explained. It doesn't cover error behavior (e.g., not found), but given the tool's simplicity and annotations, it is sufficiently complete.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for the parameters. It clarifies that 'name' and 'id' are acceptable for exact-match lookup, but it completely omits the 'slug' parameter present in the schema. This leaves a gap for the agent's understanding of all available inputs.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's action ('Fetch full detail for ONE card') and specifies the exact resources returned (oracle text, mana cost, type line, format legalities, and a brief summary of printings). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool get_card_printings by explicitly deferring printing-list use cases.
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?
The description provides explicit guidance to use get_card_printings instead when a complete printing list matters, giving a clear exclusion and alternative. It implies usage for exact-name/id lookups but does not mention other sibling tools like search_cards for fuzzy lookups, so it is not fully exhaustive.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: card lookup variants, search types, deck analysis, rule lookups, and collection queries are all separated by input type and operation. Overlapping names like get_card vs get_card_printings are still unambiguous because the descriptions specify the exact differences.
All tool names use consistent lowercase snake_case formatting, but there is a mix of verb-led names (get_card, search_cards, rate_deck) and noun-led names (deck_stats, commander_staples, my_collection). The pattern is readable and predictable, but not a uniform verb_noun convention.
With 19 tools, the server is on the heavier side but still well-scoped for the breadth of MTG: card lookup, search, rules, deck analysis, rating, upgrade suggestions, and collection management each have dedicated tools. It feels comprehensive rather than bloated, though a few could potentially be merged.
The tool set covers a wide range of MTG workflows: card details, text search, rules, deck legality, stats, combos, synergies, upgrades, and collection exploration. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct deck editing or saving), but the core needs of an assistant are well covered.