anki-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: batch processing, default deck handling, optional tags, and duplicate handling (returns None for duplicates). However, it misses details like error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs, which are important for a write operation.

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 well-structured with a purpose statement, parameter explanations, return value, and example. It's appropriately sized, though the example is detailed but necessary for clarity. Every sentence adds value, but it could be slightly more front-loaded.

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?

Given no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and an output schema (implied by 'Returns'), the description does well by covering parameters, behavior, and output. However, it lacks context on error cases or integration with siblings like 'sync_anki', leaving minor gaps for a mutation tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate fully. It clearly explains all three parameters: 'cards' as a list of dicts with 'front' and 'back' keys, 'deck_name' with its default, and 'tags' as optional. This adds essential meaning beyond the bare 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 clearly states the specific action ('Add multiple flashcards'), target resource ('to Anki'), and scope ('in a single operation'). It distinguishes from the sibling 'add_flashcard' by emphasizing batch processing versus single-card addition.

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 implies usage for batch operations with the phrase 'in a single operation,' which differentiates it from 'add_flashcard' for single cards. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_deck' or prerequisites such as requiring an active Anki connection.

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