Returns standard deck of cards data for games, simulations, or random draws.
Returns deck of cards data
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "deck_of_cards"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits such as read-only behavior, return format, or side effects. The phrase 'Returns deck of cards data' only indicates that the tool returns something; it does not disclose what the data looks like, whether the deck is shuffled, or any other relevant behavior. This is a significant gap for a tool with no structured metadata.
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, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the verb 'Returns' and the resource. However, it is under-specified, offering minimal value beyond a very basic summary. While it is concise, the brevity contributes to its vagueness, so a slightly lower score is warranted.
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 tool's simplicity (no parameters and no output schema), the description still does not convey enough context. It fails to specify the structure or content of the returned 'deck of cards data'. Without an output schema, the description should provide more detail about the return value, but it does not. The tool's completeness is inadequate for an agent to know what to expect.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the description has no need to explain parameter semantics. According to the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies when there are no parameters. The description adds no parameter information, but none is required, so the baseline score holds.
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 uses the verb 'Returns' and specifies the resource as 'deck of cards data', which clearly states the tool's basic function. However, it is vague about what specific data is returned (e.g., card values, suits, shuffled deck), and it does not differentiate from sibling tools that also return data. Therefore, it is a clear but generic purpose.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions. There is no context to help an agent decide between this tool and its siblings, so it lacks any usage framework.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.