get_deck_viewRetrieves a deck's rendered view for the InstaDeck chat viewer using its deck_id. Use it to display an existing deck when create_deck, apply_ops, or get_deck don't already show it.
Used by the InstaDeck view in the chat to render a deck. You never need to call it: create_deck, apply_ops and get_deck already show the deck.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| deck_id | Yes | Deck id from create_deck or list_decks |
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, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the non-obvious behavioral fact that the tool exists purely to serve an in-chat view and has no agent-facing purpose, which is real value beyond the annotations. It stops short of describing the rendered payload, but that matters little for a tool agents should not call.
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?
Two short sentences, zero waste. The most decision-relevant information — that the agent should not call this — is front-loaded right after the purpose clause.
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 one-parameter read-only tool that agents are told to avoid, the description covers purpose, audience and routing. The only omission is what the rendered result contains, which is immaterial given the explicit do-not-call directive and the absence of an output schema.
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 coverage is 100% and the single deck_id parameter is documented in the schema with its source tools. The description adds nothing about deck_id, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource (“render a deck”) and immediately frames the tool as a UI-internal helper (“Used by the InstaDeck view in the chat”). It is unambiguously distinguishable from get_deck, create_deck and apply_ops, which it names explicitly.
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?
Gives an explicit negative rule — “You never need to call it” — and then names the three alternative tools that already surface the deck (create_deck, apply_ops, get_deck). This is exactly the when-not-to-use guidance that most definitions omit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.