Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Recall MCP

Recall MCP

by mindnext-ai
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

delete_card

Deletes a flashcard by its card ID to remove outdated or incorrect cards from the local spaced-repetition deck.

Instructions

Delete a card by id.

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": {
      "card_id": "<card_id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_card"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
card_idYes

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?

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden for a destructive mutation. It does not say whether deletion is permanent or reversible, whether it requires elevated permissions, or what happens to dependent state such as review history or deck statistics.

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 no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than tight writing of substantive content.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For an irreversible mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation, the definition is too thin. An agent cannot tell whether the delete is soft or hard, whether it can fail on referenced cards, or what confirmation or permission it needs.

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 description coverage is 0%, but there is only one parameter and its name (card_id) is self-explanatory; the phrase "by id" confirms the identifier role. No format, range, or validity detail is added, so the description does the minimum needed for a single-key tool.

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?

"Delete a card by id" states a specific verb (delete) and resource (card) with the lookup key, so an agent immediately knows the operation. It does not distinguish itself from siblings such as add_card or review_card, but no sibling appears to be a delete alternative, so the lack of differentiation is minor.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no preconditions (e.g., card ownership or deck permissions), and no mention of what to do instead if the card should merely be archived or removed from a review queue. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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