Open a deck to its frontloaded hand — the cards that situation calls for, in order, with NO query needed. Give the deck id (from decks). Ideal for anticipating need: open 'water-safe', 'first-aid-far', 'grow-food', 'be-not-afraid', etc., and get the hand ready to read.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| limit | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior itself; it explains that the tool returns a preordered, query-free hand. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it has side effects, or what happens on invalid input.
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 front-loaded purpose and concrete examples; no filler. The deck-name examples are illustrative rather than excessive.
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 lacks information about the 'limit' parameter, output structure, and error behavior, while the absence of annotations and an output schema puts the burden on the description. It hints that output is a 'hand to read' but not its shape.
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?
The description provides context for the required 'id' by pointing to the 'decks' sibling, but it completely omits the optional 'limit' parameter. Since the schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), the agent gets no help understanding how limit affects the response.
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 'Open' with a clear resource ('deck') and explains the unique frontloaded-hand behavior with no query needed. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'decks' or 'search' by emphasizing the preordered, query-free nature.
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 frames when to use ('Ideal for anticipating need') and gives concrete deck name examples. It notes 'NO query needed,' implying it is the query-free path, but does not name alternative tools or explicit when-not-to-use conditions.
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.
Several tools are near-duplicates: read_passage and resolve both fetch WEB text for a reference; word_study already includes every occurrence that word_occurrences returns; coach_next and coach_recommend both answer 'what's next.' Search/locate/cards_browse also overlap as discovery entry points, making tool selection ambiguous despite detailed descriptions.
Most names follow an object_verb snake_case pattern (cards_browse, study_create, seal_fetch), but there are many bare verbs/nouns (ask, audit, resolve, verify, canon, harmony) and inconsistent singular/plural pairs (card_get vs cards_browse, group_create vs groups_list, want_open vs wants_list). No camelCase, but the convention is not uniform.
86 tools is an extreme count for any single MCP server, far beyond the 3-15 well-scoped range; even a broad platform would be hard for an agent to navigate. Many tools belong to unrelated subdomains (coach, steward, mesh, calendar), making the surface unwieldy.
The want/offer flow has no accept/close tool, so an agent can open a want and offer a source but never see it resolved. Group and calendar coverage are one-directional (create/join only; no leave/delete/list/update), and there is no badge listing or way to update a study group. Core reading/verification/shelf flows are solid, but lifecycle gaps remain.