Create a new deck in your Anki collection by supplying its name; returns the created deck so you can organize flashcards right away.
Create a new deck in your collection. Required: name. Returns the new Deck.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Name of the new deck |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it returns the new Deck, which is useful because no output schema exists, but it does not disclose duplicate-name behavior, permissions, or other side effects.
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 with zero waste. The core action and required parameter are front-loaded, and the return value is noted compactly.
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?
For a simple one-parameter creation tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description is nearly complete: it states the action, required input, and return object. A minor gap is the lack of any note on duplicate deck names or failure behavior.
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 100% for the single 'name' parameter, and the schema already documents it as 'Name of the new deck.' The description only restates that name is required, adding no format or constraint details beyond the 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 gives a clear verb and resource: 'Create a new deck in your collection.' This is unambiguous against siblings like deck_rename or deck_delete, though it does not explicitly name or distinguish alternatives.
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 states the required parameter but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus deck_rename, deck_delete, or other deck operations. The agent must infer the appropriate context from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.