deck_namesRetrieve the names of all decks, including subdecks formatted as Parent::Child, to get exact deck names before adding notes or searching with deck:.
Returns the names of all decks, including subdecks written as "Parent::Child". Use it to get exact deck names before adding notes or searching with deck:.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the notable disclosure that subdecks are rendered as "Parent::Child", which is real behavioral value, but says nothing about ordering, filtering, or whether filtered decks are included.
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 sentences, no filler, with the return semantics front-loaded and the usage hint following. Every clause carries information.
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?
With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return value and does so with the name-list plus subdeck separator detail. Minor gaps remain around ordering and edge cases, but nothing blocks correct invocation.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. The mention of subdeck formatting pertains to output, not input, and is still useful.
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 ('Returns the names of all decks') and clarifies the output form, so an agent can contrast it with siblings like deck_names_and_ids or get_decks that carry ids or full objects. It doesn't name those siblings explicitly, which keeps it short of a 5.
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 concrete usage context: get exact deck names before add_note or before searching with the deck: filter. That is a clear when-to-use hook, though it offers no explicit when-not or naming of the alternative lookup tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.