List EVERY printing of a card (set, rarity, artist, finish, collector number). get_card already returns a short printings summary, so reach for this only when the full list is the point.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ||
| name | No | ||
| slug | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| printings | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint already signals safety, and the description adds behavioral context by emphasizing 'EVERY' printing and enumerating output fields (set, rarity, artist, finish, collector number). This goes beyond the annotation, though it does not mention potential response volume or ordering.
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, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by a brief alternative reference. Every clause earns its place, with no redundant or filler content.
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 tool is simple, has an output schema, and safe read-only annotations. The description explains what the tool does, when to use it, and what to expect, making it complete for this complexity level.
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 0% for three optional parameters, and the description provides no guidance on how to select or prioritize id, name, or slug. The phrase 'of a card' is the only hint, which is insufficient for understanding parameter semantics.
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 uses a specific verb+resource: 'List EVERY printing of a card' with concrete fields in parentheses. It explicitly distinguishes itself from get_card, which returns a short summary, making the tool's unique purpose unmistakable.
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?
It provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'get_card already returns a short printings summary, so reach for this only when the full list is the point.' This names the alternative and sets a clear exclusion condition, which is exactly what this dimension asks for.
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.