tarot_deckAll 78 cards of the Rider-Waite deck with upright and reversed meanings. Can be limited to a group: major, wands, cups, swords, pentacles.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| group | No | Группа карт. Без неё возвращается вся колода |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It clearly states what the tool returns: the full deck or a filtered group, including upright and reversed meanings. This is sufficient for a simple read-only lookup tool and avoids hidden mutations or surprising behavior.
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 compact sentences fully convey the resource and the optional filter. The core content is front-loaded)Skip; every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.
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 low-complexity lookup tool, the description is nearly complete: it explains the return content online and the only parameter's effect. It could go further by stating output format or explicitly routing to sibling tools, but neither is necessary to call it correctly.
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 schema already documents the single parameter with enum values and the default behavior of returning the whole deck when omitted. The description repeats the allowed groups in English but adds little new semantic value beyond the structured schema.
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 identifies the resource: all 78 Rider-Waite cards with upright and reversed meanings, optionally filtered by group. The noun-phrase style lacks an explicit action verb, but 'All 78 cards' is unambiguous and the group filter distinguishes it from the singular tarot_card sibling.
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 implies when to use the tool: when you want the full deck or a particular group of cards. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like tarot_card or tarot_draw, but the 'All 78 cards' framing and optional group limitation provide usable context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.