get_cardLook up a single Yu-Gi-Oh! trading card game (TCG) card by its exact name. Returns full card details including type, description, ATK/DEF, level, attribute, archetype, banlist status, printed sets with rarities, and card prices (TCGplayer, Cardmarket, eBay, Amazon).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Exact card name, e.g. "Dark Magician". |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "name": "Dark Magician"
+ },
+ {
+ "name": "Blue-Eyes White Dragon"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds value by detailing the specific information returned (type, description, ATK/DEF, level, etc.), which goes beyond the annotations. No contradictions. However, it does not mention error handling for non-existent card names.
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?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and output. Every word serves a purpose, with no unnecessary information.
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 simple lookup tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It lists the types of data returned. A minor gap is lack of mention about behavior when a card is not found, but overall adequate given the tool's simplicity.
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 has 100% description coverage with a clear description of the 'name' parameter and examples. The description repeats the 'exact name' requirement but does not add new semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 states 'Look up a single Yu-Gi-Oh! trading card game (TCG) card by its exact name.' It specifies a specific verb ('Look up'), a clear resource ('single card'), and a unique constraint ('exact name'). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'search_cards' (likely fuzzy) and 'random_card'.
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 usage by requiring 'exact name', but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. Sibling names provide hints, but the description itself lacks explicit guidance on exclusions or prerequisites.
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.