list-card-stacksRetrieve all card stacks in the world, showing each deck, hand, and pile with its card count.
List the card decks, hands and piles of the world with their card counts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | Only this type |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v14.2609.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful output expectations by mentioning 'card counts' and enumerating the categories of stacks, going beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.
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, front-loaded sentence contains the verb, resource, scope, and return detail. There is no filler or redundant restatement.
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 filtered-list tool, the description is complete: it states what is listed, the scope, and that card counts are included. The optional type filter and safety profile are already covered by the schema and annotations, so nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.
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%, with the optional 'type' parameter fully documented by its enum and 'Only this type' description. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the schema baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 a specific verb ('List') and names the exact resources ('card decks, hands and piles') with their scope ('of the world'). It clearly differentiates this listing tool from siblings like get-card-stack and create-card-deck.
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 broad 'list ... of the world' phrasing makes it clear this is the general enumeration tool, while the optional 'type' filter narrows to deck, hand, or pile. It does not explicitly name get-card-stack as the single-item alternative, but the listing context is unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.