Retrieve upright, reversed, love, and career interpretations for any tarot card by entering its name. Get clear meanings from Deckaura for readings or guidance.
Get upright, reversed, love, and career meanings for a specific tarot card. Data from Deckaura (deckaura.com).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| card_name | Yes | Name of the tarot card (e.g., 'The Fool', 'Ace of Cups') |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the data source (Deckaura) and the output content, but does not disclose whether the call is read-only, how invalid or unknown card names are handled, or what response shape to expect.
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?
Two short sentences with the core behavior front-loaded and the source attribution in a separate sentence. Every word earns its place.
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?
For a simple one-parameter lookup, it covers the main input and output categories, but with no output schema and no annotations it leaves the exact response format and card-name matching behavior unspecified.
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?
The input schema already documents card_name at 100% coverage with examples, so the description does not need to add much. It adds no meaning beyond the schema.
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?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('meanings for a specific tarot card'), and enumerates the exact meaning categories (upright, reversed, love, career). This clearly separates it from siblings like draw_random_card, three_card_spread, and list_all_cards.
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?
It conveys the intended use case: retrieving meanings for a named/known card. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the 'specific card' scope and sibling names make the selection context clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.