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

anki-workflow-mcp

by Gugart43
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Gap Request

gap_request

Log unresolved decisions or gaps that halt an Anki card pipeline and return a gap_id, queuing the issue for review instead of creating ad-hoc rules.

Instructions

Log a gap or unresolved decision point that halts the pipeline. Per the Gap Request Protocol in anki-card-generator: when the pipeline encounters a decision without a governing rule, it MUST halt and log here instead of inventing ad-hoc rules. deck_dir: deck folder path. batch_id: e.g. 'B07'. gap_description: clear description of the decision needed. context: relevant snippet or options. Returns a gap_id and logs it to the Manifesto suggestion queue.

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>",
      "batch_id": "<batch_id>",
      "gap_description": "<gap_description>"
    },
    "name": "gap_request"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
contextNo
batch_idYes
deck_dirYes
gap_descriptionYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.1

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and largely meets it: it discloses that the call is a mandated halt-and-log protocol step, that the entry is persisted to the Manifesto suggestion queue, and that a gap_id is returned. It adds no information about permissions, idempotency, or whether repeated identical gaps are deduplicated, which is the remaining gap for a write-style 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 protocol rule and halt condition are front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by a compact parameter reference and the return value. Every sentence carries information; nothing is padding.

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 four-parameter logging tool with an output schema (so return values need no explanation), the definition covers the trigger, the side effect, all inputs, and the resulting identifier. Only the lack of any statement about persistence semantics or duplicate handling keeps it from being fully complete.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description documents all four parameters inline: deck_dir as a deck folder path, batch_id with a concrete example ('B07'), gap_description as the decision needed, and context as a snippet or options. That fully compensates for the empty schema, though it never says whether the optional context defaults to empty or what string formats deck_dir expects.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Log a gap or unresolved decision point that halts the pipeline.' That is far more than a restatement of the name and tells an agent exactly what the tool records. It stops short of naming a sibling to contrast with, so differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'When the pipeline encounters a decision without a governing rule, it MUST halt and log here instead of inventing ad-hoc rules' gives an explicit trigger condition and an explicit prohibited alternative behavior. It does not point to any other tool for actually resolving the gap, so the routing guidance is one-sided.

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