A
licenseA
qualityA
maintenanceA Model Context Protocol server that enables LLMs to interact with Anki flashcard software through AnkiConnect, allowing for creation and management of flashcards, decks, and note types.
16
243 npm
253
MIT
Anki MCP Server
by CamdenClark
anki-mcp MCP サーバー
AnkiConnectプラグインを介してAnkiと統合するサーバー
これはTypeScriptベースのMCPサーバーで、AnkiConnectプラグインを介してAnkiと統合されます。以下の機能を提供することで、MCPのコアコンセプトを実証します。
URI を持つ Anki デッキとノートモデルを表すリソース
Ankiノートを作成および管理するためのツール
AnkiConnect APIとの統合
特徴
リソース
anki://decks/{id}URI 経由で Anki デッキを一覧表示してアクセスしますanki://models/{id}URI 経由でノートモデルの一覧表示とアクセスAnkiオブジェクトのJSON表現
ツール
listDecks- すべてのデッキの名前を取得するlistModels- すべてのノートモデルの名前を取得しますgetModel- 特定のノートモデルの詳細を取得するaddNote- 単一のメモを作成するデッキ名、モデル名、フィールド、タグを指定します
addNotes- 複数のメモを一括作成指定されたパラメータで多数のノートを作成する
Related MCP server: Anki MCP Server
発達
依存関係をインストールします:
npm installサーバーを構築します。
npm run build自動リビルドを使用した開発の場合:
npm run watchインストール
Claude Desktop で使用するには、サーバー設定を追加します。
MacOS の場合: ~/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json Windows の場合: %APPDATA%/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json
{
"mcpServers": {
"anki-mcp": {
"command": "node",
"args": ["d:\\anki-mcp-server\\build\\index.js"]
}
}
}デバッグ
MCPサーバーはstdio経由で通信するため、デバッグが困難になる場合があります。パッケージスクリプトとして提供されているMCP Inspectorの使用をお勧めします。
npm run inspectorインスペクターは、ブラウザでデバッグ ツールにアクセスするための URL を提供します。
Available Tools
3 toolsanki_add_noteC
Add a flashcard to an Anki deck
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| back | Yes | Back of the flashcard | |
| deckName | Yes | The target deck name | |
| front | Yes | Front of the flashcard |
TDQS
C2.9/5.0
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.
anki_add_notesC
Add multiple flashcards to an Anki deck
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cards | Yes | ||
| deckName | Yes | The target deck name |
TDQS
C2.9/5.0
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.
anki_create_deckC
Create a new Anki deck
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| deckName | Yes | The name of the deck to create |
TDQS
C2.9/5.0
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.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
3 tool updates
v1.0.0- First observed
anki_add_note - First observed
anki_add_notes - First observed
anki_create_deck
TDQS
C2.9/5.0
Scored across 3 tools
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.
Maintenance
ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessNo issues
Related MCP Connectors
past.dev is a long-term memory API for AI agents. Send it timestamped text such as emails, meeting transcripts and support tickets. Ask a question and get the current fact, the value it replaced and the source behind it. With this server, your assistant can recall and save memory and manage your past.dev account.
A TypeScript MCP server for Home Assistant, enabling programmatic management of entities, automati…
Spaced-repetition flashcards your AI writes, quizzes you on by voice, and schedules with FSRS.
Google Keep-style notes app with an MCP server for AI agents to read/write notes.
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceA Model Context Protocol server that allows LLMs to interact with Anki flashcard software, enabling functions like creating decks, adding notes, searching cards, and managing flashcard content through natural language.243 npm1MIT
- AlicenseBqualityDmaintenanceA Model Context Protocol server that enables interaction with Anki flashcards through AnkiConnect, providing organized tools for managing decks, notes, cards, models, and media files.407MIT
- AlicenseCqualityAmaintenanceServer that enables programmatic interaction with Anki through the Model Context Protocol, allowing users to manage flashcards, decks, and review processes.315 npm39MIT