MTG Deckbuilder MCP

get_card

Look up a Magic: The Gathering card by fuzzy name, even with misspellings or partial names, to retrieve oracle text, types, colors, legalities, price, and deck roles.

Instructions

Look up one card by name (fuzzy by default, so misspellings and partial names work).

Returns oracle text, types, colours, legalities, price and the card's heuristic deck roles.

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "get_card"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes
`exact`	No
`set_code`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 28, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that matching is fuzzy by default and lists returned fields, but it says nothing about failure behavior (card not found), ambiguity when multiple cards match a partial name, or case sensitivity, which matters for a lookup 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the key behavioral caveat (fuzzy default), then the return payload. No filler.

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

Completeness3/5

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

An output schema exists so explaining return fields is not strictly required, and the description is broadly sufficient for the happy path. However, with zero schema coverage it should have covered `exact` and `set_code`, and offered at least a hint about ambiguous or missing matches.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description only addresses the `name` parameter via the fuzzy-matching note. The `exact` toggle and `set_code` filter are never mentioned, leaving two of three parameters undocumented in both schema and prose.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description states a specific verb and resource ('look up one card by name') and the scope 'one card' implicitly distinguishes it from the list-oriented search_cards sibling. It does not explicitly name any sibling to contrast with, so it falls short of a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied: the fuzzy-by-default note hints at when this lookup is appropriate (misspellings, partial names), but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives like search_cards or autocomplete_card_name.

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

Deploy Server