Skip to main content
Glama

Create Deck

create_deck

Generate or add to a flashcard deck from your request or conversation, with cards that test one fact each, using concise answers and active recall questions, then display for review.

Instructions

Create (or extend) a flashcard deck from cards you generate based on the user's request or the current conversation, then display it for review. Use "::" in deck_name to nest under a category (e.g. "LLM::Attention"). The deck persists to data/decks.json.

Follow Memora's card-quality rules (based on Wozniak's '20 Rules of Formulating Knowledge'). The front is the prompt/question, the back is the answer:

  1. Minimum information (atomic): each card tests exactly one fact or concept. Split complex material into several simple cards; never ask for lists or paragraph answers.

  2. Concise answers: the back is ideally 1-5 words (a name, date, term, or single concept), never a sentence or paragraph.

  3. Active recall: make the front a specific question (not 'Explain X'), or a cloze deletion: write the blank as "[...]" in the front and the hidden term as the back (e.g. front "The Transformer was introduced in [...].", back "2017").

  4. Unambiguous: each front must point to exactly one correct answer.

Set reverse=true to also add the back->front version of each non-cloze card (useful for vocabulary or term/definition pairs that should be drilled both ways).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cardsYesFlashcards generated from the user's request or the conversation.
appendNoIf true and the deck already exists, append to it; otherwise replace/create.
reverseNoIf true, also add the reverse (back -> front) of each non-cloze card.
deck_nameYesName for the deck to create or add to ("::" nests it).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
deckYes
cardsYes
countYes
dueCountYes
newCountYes
quizDecksNo
availableDecksYes
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description fully covers behavioral traits: persistence to data/decks.json, card-quality rules, and the effect of append (replace vs. append) and reverse. It also details the nesting behavior with '::'.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with front-loaded purpose and detailed rules. It is slightly verbose due to card-quality rules, but every sentence is justified for correct usage.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the tool's complexity with 4 parameters and custom card-quality rules, the description is complete. It covers creation, extension, nesting, card formatting, and the effect of parameters. The presence of an output schema covers return values.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by explaining deck_name nesting with '::', detailed card-quality rules (not in schema), and the reverse parameter. It does not add much to append parameter but overall enhances understanding.

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 it creates or extends a flashcard deck from cards generated based on user request or conversation. It distinguishes itself from siblings like create_quiz and study by focusing on deck creation and extending.

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 guidance on when to use the tool: 'from cards you generate based on the user's request or the current conversation.' It also explains the append and reverse parameters for extension. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives like edit_card.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Servation/memora-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server