Mochi MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

find_deck_by_name

Search for Mochi flashcard decks using partial deck names when you don't know the deck ID. This tool performs case-insensitive matching to help locate specific decks.

Instructions

Find decks by name (case-insensitive partial match). Useful when you know the deck name but not its ID.

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": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "find_deck_by_name"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`query`	Yes	Name or partial name to search for

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jan 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

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 discloses the search behavior ('case-insensitive partial match'), which is useful, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or return format. For a read operation with no annotations, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 with zero waste: the first states the purpose and behavior, the second provides usage guidance. It is front-loaded with essential information and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and a simple single-parameter input, the description covers purpose and usage well but lacks behavioral details like return format or error handling. It's complete enough for basic use but could be enhanced with more context on results.

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%, with the parameter 'query' documented as 'Name or partial name to search for'. The description adds context by reinforcing this as a search input but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema already covers.

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 verb ('find') and resource ('decks by name'), specifies the matching behavior ('case-insensitive partial match'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list_decks' and 'get_deck' by focusing on name-based searching rather than listing all decks or retrieving by ID.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It explicitly states when to use this tool ('when you know the deck name but not its ID'), providing clear context for selection over alternatives like 'get_deck' (which requires ID) or 'list_decks' (which lists all decks without filtering).

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