Printablesmith

Flash cards

make_flashcards

Read-onlyIdempotent

Make printable flash cards to cut out and fold: a word or question on the front and its meaning or answer on the back (vocabulary, sight words, facts, another language), picture cards, or math fact cards (addition, subtraction, multiplication, division). Up to 100 cards, 4, 6 or 8 a page.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "make_flashcards"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`fact`	No	Math decks: which number’s facts, e.g. "7" for the 7s, or "all".
`kind`	No	words (front and back you write), pictures (the site’s pictures with their names), or a math fact deck.
`seed`	No	Which random version to make. Leave out for a fresh one; pass the seed from an earlier result to keep that version while changing other settings.
`cards`	No	words: the cards, each a front and a back. pictures: picture names in "front" only.
`paper`	No	Paper size: letter (US Letter, the default; US and Canada) or a4 (everywhere else).
`title`	No	The title printed at the top of the sheet, e.g. "Science Vocabulary". Keep it short.
`per_page`	No	Cards on each page.
`dyslexia_font`	No	Print in OpenDyslexic, a typeface some readers with dyslexia find easier.
`answer_on_front`	No	Swap the sides: print the back (the meaning or answer) on the front.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	Yes	The sheet on printablesmith.com, every setting filled in: open it to adjust, download the PDF or print
`seed`	No	The seed that rebuilds this exact sheet
`maker`	Yes	Which maker drew it, e.g. wordSearch
`notes`	Yes	Things worth knowing about this sheet
`title`	Yes	The sheet title
`playUrl`	No	Where a child can solve it on a screen (word search, crossword, maze, sudoku)
`summary`	Yes	What the sheet is
`settings`	Yes	The address settings, as the maker reads them

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 11, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false, and openWorldHint false, so the safety profile is already handled. The description adds output-shape context that the annotations do not: the cards are physical, cut-out-and-fold artifacts, with a cap of 100 cards and 4, 6, or 8 per page. It does not mention how the sheet is laid out or what the result contains, which is left to the output schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then the variants and limits, with no filler. The parenthetical lists are dense but each item maps to a real mode of the tool. Slight repetition between the parenthetical examples and the enum values keeps it from a 5.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists and all nine parameters are documented, so the description need not cover return values. It supplies the physical format, deck variants, and hard limits an agent needs to choose this tool over a worksheet maker. Only the cross-tool routing (when a different printable is the better choice) is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all nine parameters, including the seed and fact parameters. The description merely echoes the card cap and per-page options, which the schema states, and adds no operand syntax or edge-case guidance. A baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description leads with a specific verb and resource ("Make printable flash cards to cut out and fold") and enumerates the deck variants it supports: words, pictures, and math facts. That distinguishes it from worksheet-style siblings such as make_math_worksheet, but no sibling is named explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

It gives implied selection guidance by listing the content types (vocabulary, sight words, facts, another language, pictures, arithmetic), which map to the kind enum, so an agent can tell when the tool fits. It never states when not to use it or routes the agent to an alternative sibling, so it stays at implied usage.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Printablesmith tools Inspect

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

Need Help?