Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Recall MCP

Recall MCP

by mindnext-ai
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

deck_stats

Retrieve statistics for a flashcard deck, including total cards, cards due today, new cards, and average ease factor, to monitor study progress and scheduling.

Instructions

Statistics for one deck: total cards, due today, new cards, average ease factor.

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": {
      "deck": "<deck>"
    },
    "name": "deck_stats"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
deckYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. 'Statistics' implies a read, but it does not state that the call is non-mutating, whether the deck must already exist, what happens for an unknown or empty deck, or how fresh the counts are. For a tool with zero annotation coverage this leaves meaningful behavioral gaps.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence that names the subject first and then the returned metrics; every clause carries information and nothing is redundant.

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?

For a simple read-only aggregate with no output schema, listing the metrics in the description is the right compensation and covers the return shape adequately. What remains missing is the deck identifier format and any error/empty-deck behavior, which an agent needs to call this correctly.

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

Parameters2/5

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

There is one parameter, 'deck', at 0% schema description coverage, and the description only says 'for one deck' without clarifying whether it is a deck name, ID, or path. The only added meaning is the singular scope, which the agent would likely guess anyway.

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 names a specific resource (one deck) and a specific operation (statistics), and it enumerates the exact metrics returned: total cards, due today, new cards, average ease factor. That makes it distinguishable from siblings such as due_cards or list_cards, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer 'call this when you need aggregate numbers for a single deck rather than a card list.' There is no statement of when not to use it, no prerequisites, and no pointer to a sibling for the per-card case.

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