Skip to main content
Glama

deckofcards

by io.github.pipeworx-io

New Deck

new_deck
Read-onlyIdempotent

Create a shuffled deck of playing cards. Returns deck_id and remaining count. Use deck_count to combine multiple decks (e.g., 2 for 104 cards).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
countNoNumber of standard 52-card decks to combine and shuffle. Defaults to 1.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
deck_idYesUnique identifier for the created deck
shuffledYesWhether the deck was shuffled
remainingYesNumber of cards remaining in the deck

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "deck_id": {
+      "description": "Unique identifier for the created deck",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "remaining": {
+      "description": "Number of cards remaining in the deck",
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "shuffled": {
+      "description": "Whether the deck was shuffled",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "deck_id",
+    "shuffled",
+    "remaining"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "count": 1
+  },
+  {
+    "count": 2
+  }
+]
  3. First observed

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

Description contradicts annotations. The description says 'Create a shuffled deck', implying a mutation, but annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. This is a serious inconsistency, similar to the 'create_record' example. Additionally, the description does not add behavioral context beyond the annotations, such as whether the deck is persisted or if results are deterministic.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is concise, consisting of only three short sentences. Every sentence adds value: what it does, what it returns, and how to combine decks. There is no fluff or redundancy.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The tool is simple and the description covers the core functionality, return values, and combination behavior. However, the parameter name mismatch and the contradiction with annotations reduce completeness. Since an output schema exists, return values are covered, but the semantic inconsistency could mislead an agent about the tool's safety and side effects.

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?

The schema covers 100% of the parameter with a clear description, so baseline is 3. The description adds an example (2 for 104 cards) and explains the effect, but incorrectly refers to the parameter as 'deck_count' instead of the schema name 'count'. This mismatch could confuse an agent, slightly reducing utility despite the schema coverage.

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 clearly states that the tool creates a shuffled deck of playing cards, which is a specific verb+resource. It also mentions the return values (deck_id and remaining count). However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'shuffle_deck', which could be confused since both relate to shuffling.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'shuffle_deck' or 'draw_cards'. It only explains how to combine multiple decks via the 'deck_count' parameter, which is parameter usage rather than situational guidance. There are no explicit when/when-not conditions or prerequisite mentions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All deckofcards toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools have overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are functionally identical (beta just has experimental routing), and the Polymarket suite (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread) all revolve around prediction-market signal detection with unclear boundaries. Also ai_visibility_check and scan_competitor_ai_presence overlap heavily.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is a mix of verb-first (draw_cards, resolve_entity, discover_tools) and noun-first (entity_profile, new_deck, recent_alerts) styles, with inconsistent prefixes (pipeworx_feedback vs ask_pipeworx) and no unifying convention. Some tools are bare verbs (recall, remember), others are noun phrases (polymarket_edges).

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is excessive for a server named 'deckofcards' — only 3 tools relate to cards. Even as a general-purpose data/research server, 34 is on the high end and includes many near-duplicates (ask_pipeworx variants) and highly specialized tools that could be consolidated.

Completeness3/5

The research side is fairly complete (lookup, grounding, comparison, profiles, claim verification, memory, subscriptions), but the card-deck functionality is minimal (only create, draw, shuffle) and lacks any deck inspection or hand management. The server's scope is unclear, making it hard to assess true coverage.

Resources