Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Recall MCP

Recall MCP

by mindnext-ai
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

list_cards

Retrieve cards from a flashcard deck with an optional limit, so AI coding agents can inspect deck contents before reviewing or scheduling.

Instructions

List cards in a 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": {
      "deck": "<deck>"
    },
    "name": "list_cards"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
deckYes
limitNoMax cards to return (default 50)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full disclosure burden and delivers almost nothing: it does not confirm the operation is read-only, describe ordering, or explain what happens when a deck has more cards than the limit. Only the word 'List' weakly implies a non-mutating read.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The single sentence is front-loaded and free of filler, which is good, but its brevity comes at the cost of substance rather than from efficient compression. There is no wasted wording, yet also nothing that could not be inferred from the name.

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?

The tool is simple in shape, but with no annotations, no output schema, and a required parameter of undefined type semantics, the description leaves real gaps. A sentence covering the deck identifier format and truncation behavior would make it callable without guesswork.

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?

Schema coverage is 50%, with 'deck' undocumented in both schema and description — the reader cannot tell whether it expects an opaque ID, a name, or a slug. The description adds no behavior for 'limit' either, such as whether truncation is silent or what the default ordering is before truncation.

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 verb and resource ('List cards') and scopes it to a deck, so the operation is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish this from the sibling due_cards or explain how it relates to deck_stats, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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 at all: no mention of when to prefer due_cards for study queues, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent must guess whether this returns all cards or a filtered subset from the name alone.

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