Mochi MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

update_cards_batch_preview

Preview changes before updating multiple flashcards simultaneously to ensure accuracy and avoid errors in batch editing.

Instructions

Preview updates for multiple cards at once.

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": {
      "updates": "<updates>"
    },
    "name": "update_cards_batch_preview"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`updates`	Yes	List of updates

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jan 10, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'preview' which suggests non-destructive read-only behavior, but doesn't clarify if this is a dry-run simulation, what the preview output looks like, whether it validates inputs, or if there are rate limits. For a batch operation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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?

Extremely concise single sentence with zero waste - 'Preview updates for multiple cards at once.' Front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a batch preview tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the preview shows, how results are returned, error handling for invalid updates, or limitations on batch size. Given the complexity of batch operations and lack of structured metadata, more context is needed.

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 'updates' parameter fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying batch processing of multiple cards. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the action ('Preview updates') and resource ('multiple cards'), distinguishing it from single-card preview tools like 'update_card_preview'. However, it doesn't specify what kind of updates (content/tags) or how it differs from 'apply_update_cards_batch' which likely applies rather than previews.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_card_preview' (single card) or 'apply_update_cards_batch' (actual application). The description implies batch operations but doesn't specify prerequisites, limitations, or comparative contexts with sibling tools.

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