Find the commanders that most often play a Magic card and the cards commonly paired with it using EDHREC recommendations.
EDHREC data for a card: the commanders that play it most and cards commonly played with it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only discloses the shape of the returned data (commanders, co-played cards) rather than behavioral traits such as caching, rate limits, or whether the lookup is a pure read. For a low-risk data lookup this is acceptable but thin.
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 colon-structured sentence that front-loads the resource and enumerates the return content with zero filler. Every clause earns its place.
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?
The tool is simple (one param) and has an output schema, so return values need not be explained. The remaining gap is the absence of any routing guidance against the closely related edhrec_recommendations sibling, leaving selection ambiguous.
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?
Only one parameter ('name') with 0% schema description coverage; the phrase 'for a card' implies the parameter is a card name, adding minimal meaning. It does not clarify accepted formats (exact name vs fuzzy, set/printing disambiguation) that an agent would need.
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 states a clear resource (EDHREC data for a card) and names the two concrete outputs (most-played commanders, commonly co-played cards), so an agent knows what it returns. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling edhrec_recommendations, which reads as a near-overlapping EDHREC endpoint.
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?
No when-to-use guidance is given, and no alternatives are named despite an obvious sibling (edhrec_recommendations) covering adjacent EDHREC data. The agent must guess which EDHREC tool to pick.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.