Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
anki-workflow-mcp

anki-workflow-mcp

by Gugart43
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Count Batch Cards

count_batch_cards

Count the Anki card budget for a batch: QA notes count as one card each, and each distinct cloze cN index counts as one card. Returns totals, within-limit status, and excess.

Instructions

Count the Anki card budget for a batch. QA notes = 1 card each. Cloze notes: each distinct cN index = 1 card. Returns qa_cards, cloze_notes, cloze_indices (expanded count), total, within_limit (≤20), excess, and ext_batch_suggested if over the limit.

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": {
      "qa_csv": "<qa_csv>",
      "cloze_csv": "<cloze_csv>"
    },
    "name": "count_batch_cards"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
qa_csvYes
batch_idNo
cloze_csvYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.1

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does real work: it discloses the counting semantics (QA notes = 1 card, each distinct cN index = 1 card), the hard limit (≤20), and the excess/ext_batch_suggested behavior when over budget. It omits whether the operation is purely read-only or what happens with malformed CSVs, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences, opened by the core purpose and followed by counting rules and outputs, with no filler. Slight redundancy in enumerating return fields when an output schema exists, but the enumeration is brief and readable.

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 3-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions and no annotations, the definition covers the domain logic and budget threshold well but leaves batch_id undefined and CSV structure unexplained. The output schema makes re-listing return fields unnecessary, so that portion adds little.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and it only partially does: it reveals indirectly that qa_csv holds QA notes and cloze_csv holds cloze notes with cN indices. The batch_id parameter is never mentioned, and expected CSV format/shape is left unspecified.

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 specific verb and resource ('Count the Anki card budget for a batch') and then defines the counting rule, so the agent knows exactly what is being computed. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with siblings like validate_batch or review_batch, which is why it stops short of a 5.

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 purpose implies when to use it (checking card-budget compliance for a batch), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of which sibling to pick instead for validation or review. Usage must be inferred from the stated purpose.

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