anki-workflow-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Csv Build Row

csv_build_row

Build a safe pipe-delimited CSV row from field values for QA or Cloze notes, applying escaping and formatting rules while preserving valid HTML.

Instructions

Build a single, guaranteed-safe pipe-delimited CSV row from a list of field values. Applies all formatting-guide rules: newlines→, pipe→|, inequalities→</>, bare &→& without double-escaping, while preserving valid HTML tags. fields must match the note type: 7 values for QA, 6 for Cloze. Returns the safe CSV line string.

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": {
      "fields": "<fields>"
    },
    "name": "csv_build_row"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`fields`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.1Nov 14, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it enumerates the exact escaping transformations (newlines→<br>, pipe→|, inequalities→</>, bare &→& with no double-escaping, valid HTML tags preserved) and states the output is a safe CSV line string. Gaps remain around error behavior for mismatched field counts and whether input is mutated or copied.

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, front-loaded with the core action, then the transformation rules, then the field-count constraint and return type. The escaping enumeration is dense but each item earns its place as an operational rule. Nothing is redundant.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a single-parameter, deterministic formatting tool this is close to complete: what it does, the exact escaping semantics, the field-count constraint, and the return type are all present. The missing piece is failure behavior when the array length does not match the note type.

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% and the single `fields` array item is completely undescribed in the schema, so the description must compensate. It does add real meaning — fields are raw field values and the count is type-dependent (7 for QA, 6 for Cloze) — but it never specifies field order/positions or what each of the 7 or 6 slots represents.

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 artifact: "Build a single, guaranteed-safe pipe-delimited CSV row from a list of field values." An agent immediately knows this is a transformation/formatting tool, not a validator or file writer. It does not name a sibling such as validate_csv_structure, so sibling differentiation is left implicit.

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 implied through the constraint that "fields must match the note type: 7 values for QA, 6 for Cloze" and that all formatting-guide rules are applied automatically, so an agent knows this is the place to produce safe rows. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not, and no statement of what happens if the field count is wrong or whether the row must later be passed to validate_csv_structure.

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

Deploy Server