Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Kani MCP Server

Kani MCP Server

by Alexxanddr
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

list_subjects

Read-onlyIdempotent

List radicals, kanji, and vocabulary with optional level, type, slug, ID, or update-time filters to find matching WaniKani subjects.

Instructions

List radicals, kanji, and vocabulary with optional level, type, or slug filters

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_subjects"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idsNo
slugsNo
typesNo
hiddenNo
levelsNo
page_after_idNo
updated_afterNo
page_before_idNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.4

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety and idempotency profile is covered. The description adds that the list can be filtered, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, the 1000-item caps, or the hidden/updated_after parameters, leaving some behavioral context uncovered.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently states the resource scope and the optional filter categories.

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 query tool with 8 parameters, no output schema, and 0% schema descriptions, the description is incomplete. It omits key filtering and pagination parameters, so an agent relying on the description would not understand the full query surface.

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 8 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only mentions level, type, and slug filters, omitting ids, hidden, updated_after, page_after_id, and page_before_id, which leaves most parameters without explanatory meaning beyond their raw schema types.

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?

The description states a specific verb ('List') and resource types ('radicals, kanji, and vocabulary'), making the tool's core purpose clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings, but those siblings cover unrelated resources, so the lack of sibling differentiation is not a major gap.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'with optional level, type, or slug filters' implies usage for filtered subject listing, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of prerequisites. It provides context but stops short of actionable selection guidance.

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