Studycut Flashcards

Generate flashcard deck

generate_flashcard_deck

Read-onlyIdempotent

Use this when the user wants a flashcard maker for supplied question-answer pairs: flip cards interactively, track review progress, print paired cut-out cards as an A4 or Letter PDF, or export an Anki-style Front/Back CSV. Removes identical pairs. Does not generate learning content, check facts, provide spaced repetition, or sync progress. PDF prints Latin with accents, Greek, Cyrillic and Vietnamese; scripts its font lacks (CJK, Arabic, Hebrew, Thai, Indic, emoji) show as [?]; widget and CSV preserve Unicode. Up to 24 cards and a 2,800-byte payload.

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": {
      "cards": "<cards>"
    },
    "name": "generate_flashcard_deck"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`cards`	Yes	Explicit question-answer pairs supplied by the user, e.g. [{question:"hello",answer:"hola"}]. Do not invent answers.
`paper`	No	PDF paper size, e.g. A4 (default) or Letter.
`title`	No	Optional deck title, e.g. Spanish greetings.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`paper`	Yes
`title`	Yes
`warnings`	Yes
`downloads`	Yes
`pdf_pages`	Yes
`card_count`	Yes
`input_count`	Yes
`duplicate_count`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 22, 2026

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond them. It discloses deduplication of identical pairs, PDF font limitations for CJK/Arabic/Hebrew/Thai/Indic/emoji, Unicode preservation in widget and CSV output, and capacity limits. This is unusually transparent for a generation tool.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the usage condition and then packs output modes, exclusions, encoding caveats, and limits into tightly written sentences. Despite its density, every sentence adds operational value and there is no filler.

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

Completeness5/5

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

The tool has an output schema, complete parameter descriptions, and rich annotations, so the description does not need to explain return values. It still covers the critical behavioral caveats an agent needs: supplied input only, deduplication, PDF font limitations, Unicode caveats, and size limits. Nothing important appears missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so parameter meaning is already well documented. The description adds useful constraint context, especially the 24-card and 2,800-byte payload limits, and reinforces that question-answer pairs must be user-supplied rather than invented. It does not add much parameter-level detail beyond the schema, but the extra constraints are meaningful.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description states a specific verb and resource: generating a flashcard deck from supplied question-answer pairs. It clearly distinguishes its capabilities, including interactive flipping, PDF printing, CSV export, and deduplication. No sibling tools exist, but the purpose is unambiguous without needing comparison.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly says when to use the tool: when the user wants a flashcard maker for supplied question-answer pairs. It also gives clear exclusions by stating it does not generate learning content, check facts, provide spaced repetition, or sync progress. There are no sibling tools, so naming alternatives is unnecessary.

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

All Studycut Flashcards 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?