Skip to main content
Glama
CamdenClark

Anki MCP Server

by CamdenClark
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
JavaScript
Local

Server Quality Checklist

58%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation3/5

    The tools have overlapping purposes, as 'anki_add_note' and 'anki_add_notes' both handle adding flashcards, differing only in single vs. multiple notes. This could cause misselection if an agent needs to add one note but picks the plural version, or vice versa. However, the descriptions clarify the distinction, preventing complete confusion.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tool names follow a consistent 'anki_verb_noun' pattern with snake_case, making them predictable and easy to parse. The verbs ('add', 'create') are clear and appropriately matched to their actions, ensuring no deviation in naming conventions across the set.

    Tool Count2/5

    With only 3 tools, the server feels under-scoped for managing Anki flashcards, as it lacks essential operations like retrieving, updating, or deleting notes or decks. This minimal set may force agents into dead ends when trying to perform common tasks beyond basic creation.

    Completeness2/5

    The tool surface is severely incomplete for Anki management, missing critical CRUD operations such as getting or listing notes/decks, updating existing content, or deleting items. This creates significant gaps that will likely cause agent failures in typical workflows, as users cannot interact with existing data.

  • Average 2.9/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • This repository is licensed under MIT License.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior2/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Add') which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like whether it requires specific permissions, what happens if the deck doesn't exist, error conditions, or how the system responds to successful addition. The description is minimal and lacks operational context.

    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 extremely concise with a single, clear sentence that communicates the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward tool and gets directly to the point with no unnecessary elaboration.

    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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what happens after adding the flashcard, potential error conditions, or how to verify success. Given the tool's complexity as a write operation and the lack of structured behavioral information, more context about the operation's behavior and outcomes would be valuable.

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

    Parameters3/5

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

    The description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, which has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all three parameters. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate schema documentation, but the description doesn't provide additional context about parameter relationships, constraints, or usage patterns.

    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 clearly states the action ('Add') and resource ('flashcard to an Anki deck'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling 'anki_add_notes' by specifying singular 'flashcard' vs. plural 'notes', but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'anki_create_deck' which creates decks rather than flashcards.

    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?

    The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose this over 'anki_add_notes' (for single vs. multiple cards) or 'anki_create_deck' (for creating decks before adding cards). No prerequisites or contextual usage information is provided.

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

  • Behavior2/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Add multiple flashcards') but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this is a write operation (implied but not confirmed), error handling (e.g., if the deck doesn't exist), or response format. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

    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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, with no wasted information.

    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?

    Given the lack of annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter documentation (50% coverage), the description is insufficient. It doesn't address key contextual elements like mutation effects, error scenarios, or return values, making it inadequate for safe and effective tool invocation.

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

    Parameters3/5

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

    The description mentions 'multiple flashcards' and 'Anki deck', which loosely maps to the 'cards' array and 'deckName' parameters. However, with 50% schema description coverage (only 'deckName' has a description), the description doesn't add meaningful details about parameter formats, constraints, or the structure of card objects (front/back fields). It partially compensates but not fully.

    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 clearly states the action ('Add multiple flashcards') and resource ('to an Anki deck'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'anki_add_note' (singular vs. plural), which could cause confusion about when to use each.

    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?

    The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'anki_add_note' (for single cards) or 'anki_create_deck' (for deck creation). There's no mention of prerequisites, such as whether the deck must already exist, or any contextual limitations.

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

  • Behavior2/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as error handling (e.g., what happens if the deck already exists), permission requirements, side effects, or response format, which are critical for a creation tool.

    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, direct sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It efficiently communicates the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

    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 creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavior, error cases, and output, leaving gaps that could hinder an agent's ability to use the tool effectively in complex scenarios.

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

    Parameters3/5

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

    Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'deckName' clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond the schema, such as naming conventions or constraints, but the schema provides adequate baseline information.

    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 clearly states the action ('Create') and resource ('new Anki deck'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'anki_add_note' or 'anki_add_notes', which are about adding content rather than creating deck structure.

    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?

    No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the deck must not already exist), constraints, or relationships to sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

anki-mcp-server MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

anki-mcp-server MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/CamdenClark/anki-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server