Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Recall MCP

Recall MCP

by mindnext-ai
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

create_deck

Create a new flashcard deck with a unique name and optional description, so you can organize cards for spaced-repetition review.

Instructions

Create a new flashcard deck.

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "create_deck"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesUnique deck name
descriptionNoOptional deck description

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a mutation but never states what happens if the name already exists (despite the schema calling it 'Unique deck name'), what permissions are needed, or what the response contains.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification for a create operation.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The tool is simple (2 params, one required, no nesting, no output schema), so the description is nearly adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the absence of any note on duplicate-name behavior or the created deck's identifier is a real gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema (name as unique deck name, description as optional). The description adds no meaning beyond that, which is the baseline expectation when the schema does the work.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Create a new flashcard deck'), which is unambiguous. It does not name or differentiate from siblings like list_decks or add_card, but the operation itself is distinct enough that an agent won't confuse it.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as whether an existing deck should be looked up first via list_decks. The agent must infer all usage context.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools