Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Kani MCP Server

Kani MCP Server

by Alexxanddr
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

list_spaced_repetition_systems

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve spaced repetition system definitions with optional ID, update-time, and pagination filters to identify valid SRS stages for WaniKani review data.

Instructions

List spaced repetition system definitions

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_spaced_repetition_systems"
  }
}

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 that — it does not mention pagination behavior (page_after_id/page_before_id), the 1000-item ids cap, or result ordering, all of which matter for a paginated list tool.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single short sentence with no waste and the verb-resource pair front-loaded. It is efficiently written but so terse that it borders on under-specification rather than tight clarity.

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, no output schema, and no statement of what is returned or how paging works, the definition leaves significant gaps for a list tool. Annotations cover the safety story but do not fill the functional gaps.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% across 4 parameters, and the description provides no compensating detail. The ids filter, updated_after filter, and cursor-based pagination params are entirely undocumented in prose, so an agent gets only bare types from the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a list operation on a specific resource ('spaced repetition system definitions'), which is somewhat more specific than the tool name alone. However, it does not clarify what a 'system definition' contains or how it differs from related siblings such as list_level_progressions or list_subjects, leaving the agent to infer the resource boundary.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of filtering/pagination conditions, and no exclusions. The agent must infer from the sibling list that this is the way to enumerate all spaced repetition systems.

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