quiz_video_list_flashcard_decksList flashcard decks owned by the authenticated user with optional pagination.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | 1-indexed page number. | |
| limit | No | Results per page (1–100, default 20). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is established. The description adds the ownership scope and pagination behavior, but doesn't disclose return format, ordering, or any rate limits. This is adequate but not rich.
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, concise sentence that directly states the core functionality and scope. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or filler.
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 list operation with no output schema, the description covers purpose, ownership scope, and pagination. The input schema fully documents parameters, and annotations declare the safety profile. No critical gaps remain.
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%: both page and limit have descriptions. The description mentions 'optional pagination' but adds no new details beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 applies since the schema fully documents the parameters.
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 a specific action ('List') on a specific resource ('flashcard decks'), scoped to the authenticated user, with optional pagination. This distinguishes it from sibling list tools like quiz_video_list_quizzes or quiz_video_list_templates.
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 it: when needing to list the user's own flashcard decks. It provides clear context (ownership, pagination) but doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. The distinction from siblings is implicit via the resource type.
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.
Every tool targets a distinct resource and action (create/get/list/update/delete per entity). Overlapping pairs like get_render vs download_render are clearly differentiated by their purpose, and generate_quiz vs create_quiz serve different creation modes. There is no ambiguity between tools.
The vast majority of tools follow a consistent 'quiz_video_<verb>_<noun>' pattern in snake_case. The only deviation is the three discovery tools (get_api_catalog, get_llms_txt, get_openapi_spec) which omit the 'quiz_video_' prefix, though they still use a clear verb_noun structure.
With 30 tools, the server is on the heavier side and exceeds the typical 15-tool guideline. However, the count is justified by the breadth of resources covered (quizzes, questions, hooks, templates, flashcard decks, renders, music, account) and each tool has a distinct role, so the size feels appropriate for a comprehensive API surface.
The server covers full CRUD for most core resources (quizzes, templates, flashcard decks, hooks) and add/list for questions. Minor gaps include no individual question update/delete and no direct render deletion, but these are not critical and the main workflows (create → view → render → download) are fully covered.