Mochi MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

delete_deck

Remove a flashcard deck from Mochi.cards using deck ID and typed confirmation for safety. This tool requires environment variable MOCHI_ALLOW_DECK_DELETE=true to be enabled.

Instructions

Delete a deck (disabled by default, requires MOCHI_ALLOW_DECK_DELETE=true)

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": {
      "deckId": "<deckId>",
      "confirmation": "<confirmation>"
    },
    "name": "delete_deck"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`deckId`	Yes	Deck ID to delete
`confirmation`	Yes	Must be exactly: "delete deck <deckName>"

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jan 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and discloses critical behavioral traits: it's a destructive operation (implied by 'Delete'), requires explicit environment configuration, and includes a confirmation parameter for safety. However, it doesn't detail error cases or irreversible consequences.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with zero waste—every word adds value (action, resource, configuration requirement). It's appropriately sized for a simple destructive operation.

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?

For a destructive tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers purpose and prerequisites but lacks details on outcomes (e.g., what happens to associated cards), error handling, or confirmation rationale. It's minimally adequate given the complexity.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters fully. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and resource ('a deck'), with specific differentiation from siblings like 'delete_card' by focusing on deck-level deletion. It's specific and unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides explicit context for when to use it ('disabled by default, requires MOCHI_ALLOW_DECK_DELETE=true'), but doesn't mention alternatives like 'delete_card' or when not to use it (e.g., for batch operations).

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