get_cardLook up a single Magic: The Gathering (MTG) card by name (fuzzy matching). Returns full card details including mana cost, oracle text, colors, prices, legalities, and image.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| set | No | Optional 3-letter set code to pin the printing, e.g. "neo". | |
| name | Yes | Card name (fuzzy matched), e.g. "black lotus". |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "name": "black lotus"
+ },
+ {
+ "name": "lightning bolt",
+ "set": "neo"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and safe (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint). The description adds valuable context: fuzzy matching behavior and the specific details returned (mana cost, oracle text, etc.). No contradictions.
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?
A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and includes necessary details. No unnecessary words.
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?
Given the lack of output schema, the description appropriately outlines the return content (full card details including various attributes). It does not discuss error handling or rate limits, but the annotations cover safety. The tool's purpose is sufficiently complete for an MTG card lookup.
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 coverage is 100% and includes descriptions for both parameters. The description adds 'fuzzy matching' which is not in the schema, clarifying how the name parameter behaves. This adds value beyond the 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 specifies the action ('look up'), the resource ('single MTG card'), and the method ('by name, fuzzy matching'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'search_cards' (multiple results) and 'random_card' (random).
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 states usage ('look up a single card by name') but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'search_cards' for broader queries or 'random_card' for random picks. Context from sibling names implies the distinction but is not stated.
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.