Preview card deletions before making changes, showing exact cards, orphaned notes, and preserved siblings without writing. Use card IDs from search results.
Preview exact cards, orphaned notes, and preserved siblings without writing. Get card IDs from search_notes. Maximum 500 cards.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| card_ids | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond annotations: it reports exact cards, orphaned notes, and preserved siblings, and enforces a maximum of 500 cards. It does not describe rate limits or auth, but those are less critical for a read-only preview tool.
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, front-loaded with what the tool does and immediately followed by the required input source and limit. No filler or repetition.
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?
With an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description provides enough behavioral context to call the tool correctly: input source, preview scope, no-write guarantee, and maximum batch size. It could be slightly stronger by explicitly connecting this preview to the delete_cards sibling, but it is otherwise complete for a read-only preview operation.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by clarifying that card_ids must come from search_notes and that the maximum is 500 cards, which is meaningful semantics beyond the raw array 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 and resource ('Preview exact cards') and explicitly distinguishes itself from a destructive delete by stating 'without writing.' It also names the exact preview outputs (orphaned notes, preserved siblings), so an agent can tell it apart from delete_cards and preview_delete_deck.
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 gives useful context by telling the agent where to obtain the required input ('Get card IDs from search_notes') and implies the preview-before-delete workflow through 'without writing.' However, it does not explicitly name delete_cards as the alternative or state when this preview should be skipped, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.