get_setLook up a single Pokémon TCG (or other trading card game) set by its TCGdex id (e.g. "swsh3"). Returns full set details: serie, release date, card counts, and the list of cards in the set.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | TCGdex set id, e.g. "swsh3". |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "id": "swsh3"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, signaling safe read-only behavior. The description adds value by detailing the return content: 'serie, release date, card counts, and the list of cards'. No contradiction with annotations.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys purpose and output. No unnecessary words.
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 lookup tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the return details. It could mention example IDs or edge cases (e.g., not found), but given the annotations and schema, it is complete enough.
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% with the parameter 'id' described. The description also mentions 'by its TCGdex id'. No additional semantics needed beyond what schema and description provide.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Look up a single Pokémon TCG (or other trading card game) set by its TCGdex id'. It specifies the verb 'look up', the resource 'set', and the unique identifier. The emphasis on 'single' distinguishes it from sibling 'list_sets' which lists all sets.
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?
The description provides clear context on when to use the tool (when you have a specific set ID). It does not explicitly mention alternatives like 'list_sets' for browsing sets, but the usage is well implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Multiple clusters of near-overlapping tools: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are described as sharing identical routing (beta currently matches stable exactly), and polymarket_edges/polymarket_arbitrage/bet_research all surface 'betting opportunities' with only subtle distinctions agents will struggle to select between. ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence and entity_profile vs compare_entities compound the ambiguity.
Names mostly follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (get_card, list_sets, search_cards, subscribe, unsubscribe, discover_tools, validate_claim). Minor deviations exist (entity_profile, bet_research, remember/recall/forget, pipeline prefix families like ask_pipeworx_* and polymarket_*), but the conventions are readable and predictable overall.
35 tools is heavy per calibration (25+), and the vast majority are unrelated to the server's apparent TCGdex purpose — only 4 of 35 tools touch trading cards. The count is bloated with Pipeworx/Polymarket/memory/subscription tools that belong to a different server.
The actual TCGdex subset (list_sets, get_set, search_cards, get_card) covers basic read-only lookup but has gaps — no set search, no type/rarity/attribute filtering, no pagination, no serie endpoints. The other 31 tools serve disparate domains (data lookup, prediction markets, memory, npm scanning), so no coherent domain surface is actually complete.