MTG Tools — Commander deck review and mana bases

Delete a synced collection plan

delete_collection_plan

Destructive

Delete a private saved plan by ID and current revision for the signed-in Landfiller account.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "id": "<id>",
      "revision": "<revision>"
    },
    "name": "delete_collection_plan"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes
`qaTest`	No	Internal QA only: set true when the user explicitly says this is our test run. Excludes the call from usage/revenue statistics. Omit for normal player requests.
`revision`	Yes
`searchContext`	No	Optional opaque context from a preceding card search for attributing a related request.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedNov 9, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / searchContext / description

Previous value: -"Return the opaque searchContext from the preceding card search when the user requests a follow-up. Never invent it or run follow-ups automatically."New value: +"Optional opaque context from a preceding card search for attributing a related request."

Changed1 schema field changedNov 2, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / searchContext

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Return the opaque searchContext from the preceding card search when the user requests a follow-up. Never invent it or run follow-ups automatically.",
+  "maxLength": 400,
+  "type": "string"
+}

AddedOct 30, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior on top: the plan must be private to the signed-in account, and the pass of a 'current revision' implies an optimistic-concurrency guard that will reject stale revisions. It does not state what happens on a revision mismatch or whether deletion is reversible.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

A single sentence with no filler; the action, resource, scoping keys, and account context are all front-loaded.

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?

For a destructive, non-idempotent mutation with annotations and no output schema, the description covers target, scope, and the concurrency requirement. Missing only failure behavior on a stale revision and confirmation of irreversibility, which are minor given destructiveHint is already set.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 50%, with 'id' and 'revision' carrying only types and no prose; the description compensates by explaining both are required identifiers. 'Current revision' adds real meaning beyond 'integer 1..9007199254740991' by signaling the value must be up to date. The remaining two parameters are documented in the schema itself.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Delete a private saved plan') plus the scoping keys 'ID and current revision', which clearly separates it from save_collection_plan and list_collection_plans. It stops short of naming a sibling as an explicit alternative, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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?

Usage is only implied: the verb and the 'current revision' phrasing suggest you must have a freshly read plan before deleting it, but the description never states when to use this versus re-saving or listing plans, nor any precondition such as owning the plan. No explicit when-not guidance is given.

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

All MTG Tools — Commander deck review and mana bases 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?