Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Kani MCP Server

Kani MCP Server

by Alexxanddr
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

list_study_materials

Read-onlyIdempotent

List saved WaniKani notes and synonyms with filters for IDs, update time, and pagination to retrieve or review study materials.

Instructions

List user notes and synonyms

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_study_materials"
  }
}

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 readOnly, idempotent, and openWorld, so the safety profile is conveyed. The description adds nothing about pagination, filtering, ordering, or rate behavior beyond what annotations and the tool name imply.

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?

Six words is concise, but it's under-specification rather than conciseness—there is no front-loaded scope or pagination note to earn the brevity.

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?

For a four-parameter, paginated list tool with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It doesn't explain pagination, filter behavior, or return shape, so an agent cannot reliably call it correctly.

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% and the description says nothing about any of the four parameters (ids, page_after_id, page_before_id, updated_after). The list verb hints at pagination, but the cursor semantics and filter intent are explained nowhere.

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 names a verb and resources (notes and synonyms), but it doesn't match the tool name well ('study materials' vs. notes/synonyms) and gives no scope or format detail. An agent can infer it lists notes and synonyms but can't tell exactly what 'study materials' means here.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no indication of when to prefer other list_* siblings. The agent is left to infer usage entirely.

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