anki-workflow-mcp

by Gugart43

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

Corpus Coverage

corpus_coverage

Compares corpus vocabulary against a deck's Manifesto to identify coverage gaps and guide targeted flashcard additions.

Instructions

Compare corpus vocabulary against the deck Manifesto to identify coverage gaps.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "deck_dir": "<deck_dir>"
    },
    "name": "corpus_coverage"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`deck_dir`	Yes	Absolute path to the deck directory (must contain manifesto.json).

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.1Nov 14, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden and it does not state whether the tool is read-only, whether it writes a report anywhere, how expensive a full vocabulary comparison is, or what happens if manifesto.json is absent. The only behavioral hint, that the deck Manifesto is the baseline, is already implied by the schema's requirement.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and ending on the outcome, with no filler. It could be marginally more informative without exceeding a sentence or two.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter tool with a full schema and an output schema, the description covers the core purpose adequately, but it leaves the read-only-versus-mutating nature and the relationship to sibling gap/manifesto tools unstated.

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 single parameter deck_dir has 100% schema description coverage, including the requirement that it be absolute and contain manifesto.json, so the schema does the semantic work. The description adds no meaning beyond it, which is the expected baseline.

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?

States a concrete verb chain ("Compare corpus vocabulary against the deck Manifesto") plus the goal ("identify coverage gaps"), so the agent knows the operation and its output intent. It stops short of naming how it differs from adjacent tools such as gap_request or corpus_digest.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer it is for coverage analysis after a manifesto exists, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisite ordering relative to manifesto_init/manifesto_commit, and no alternative-routing guidance to gap_request.

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

Deploy Server