Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Kani MCP Server

Kani MCP Server

by Alexxanddr
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

list_resets

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve account reset history with optional ID and update-time filters to review when WaniKani progress was reset.

Instructions

List account reset history

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_resets"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idsNo
page_after_idNo
updated_afterNo
page_before_idNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.4

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond the purpose line — no mention of pagination behavior, result ordering, or the fact that the four parameters are all optional filters/cursors, even though the tool is clearly paginated with bidirectional cursors.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste, but it is terse to the point of under-specification rather than genuinely concise. It earns its place but does too little work for the tool's complexity.

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

Completeness2/5

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

With four undocumented optional parameters, bidirectional cursor pagination, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description leaves the agent to guess filtering and paging semantics. It is not sufficient to invoke the tool confidently beyond a bare no-argument call.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% for four parameters (ids, page_after_id, page_before_id, updated_after). The description mentions none of them, so an agent gets no guidance on what 'ids' refers to (users? resets?), how the two cursors interact, or that updated_after is a datetime filter — leaving potentially mutually exclusive cursor usage undocumented.

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?

States a concrete verb ('List') and resource ('account reset history'), which is distinguishable from all listed siblings (reviews, subjects, assignments, etc.). It does not explicitly name an alternative, but the resource is specific enough that confusion is unlikely.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus siblings, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent must infer that it is for auditing account reset events only.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools