flipzi_get_cardFetch metadata and variant details for a trading card using its Flipzi UUID; returns card attributes without pricing data.
Card metadata and variants (no prices). Available on the free plan. Cost: 1 unit.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| card_id | Yes | Flipzi card id (UUID). Get it from flipzi_search_cards or flipzi_list_set_cards. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, so the description's real contribution is operational: it is free-plan eligible and costs 1 unit. Billing and plan eligibility are behavioral traits the annotations cannot express, which is genuine added value, though nothing is said about response size or rate limits.
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?
Three short sentences, each carrying distinct information (scope, plan, cost), with the content-defining scope statement front-loaded and zero filler.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description must hint at the return shape; 'card metadata and variants' plus the price exclusion does that at a high level for a low-complexity, single-required-param getter, and plan/cost context is supplied. It stops short of enumerating what 'metadata' contains.
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 description coverage is 100% with a single well-documented card_id whose description even names where to obtain it. The tool description adds nothing further about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource — card metadata plus variants — and immediately scopes it with '(no prices)', which separates it from flipzi_get_price and the pricing siblings. It does not name an alternative tool outright, but the resource is unambiguous.
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 '(no prices)' carve-out implies that price lookups belong to flipzi_get_price, and the schema routes card_id acquisition to flipzi_search_cards / flipzi_list_set_cards, but the description itself never states when to choose this tool over those siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.