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

anki-workflow-mcp

by Gugart43
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Pipeline Gate Check

pipeline_gate_check

Evaluate all gate checks for a pipeline phase without advancing state, recording a receipt on PASS and invalidating earlier receipts on FAIL or INCOMPLETE.

Instructions

Evaluate all gate checks for a pipeline phase without advancing the state. A PASS records the receipt for the batch (content_hash); a FAIL or INCOMPLETE invalidates any earlier receipt for that phase. Also returns read-only information_profiles (3-layer breakdown per row, excluded from receipt hash; length-only signals are advisory WARN, never blocking). deck_dir: deck folder (manifesto + anki_catalog.csv). batch_id: e.g. 'B07'. phase: drafted|curated|enriched|illustrated|validated. qa_csv / cloze_csv: full CSV texts. detail: 'compact' (default; diagnostics aggregated by code with affected rows) or 'full' (every check). Verdict: PASS | INCOMPLETE (a check could not run; no receipt) | FAIL.

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>",
      "phase": "<phase>",
      "qa_csv": "<qa_csv>",
      "cloze_csv": "<cloze_csv>"
    },
    "name": "pipeline_gate_check"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
phaseYes
detailNocompact
qa_csvYes
batch_idYes
deck_dirYes
cloze_csvYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.1

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
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 does well: it discloses the non-obvious side effects (a PASS records a receipt keyed by content_hash; FAIL/INCOMPLETE invalidates earlier receipts), that information_profiles are read-only and excluded from the hash, and that length-only signals are advisory WARN and never blocking. It leaves out permission requirements, idempotency/concurrency behavior, and error handling.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the no-advance constraint, then parameter notes, then verdict definitions — a sensible ordering with no filler sentences. It is dense and telegraphic (parenthetical asides, semicolon chains) rather than wasteful, though slightly harder to scan than a cleaner list would be.

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 6-parameter, 5-required gate tool with an output schema already covering return values, the description supplies the missing behavioral contract: receipt recording/invalidation, verdict meanings, and detail modes. Only minor gaps remain, such as how qa_csv and cloze_csv relate to deck_dir contents and what ambient environment is assumed.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for every one of the six parameters: deck_dir contents, batch_id format example, the allowed phase values, that qa_csv/cloze_csv are full CSV texts, and what 'compact' vs 'full' detail actually returns. This adds meaning well beyond the bare string-typed properties.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Evaluate all gate checks for a pipeline phase') plus the crucial scope qualifier 'without advancing the state', which cleanly separates it from the sibling pipeline_phase_advance. An agent can tell what it does and what it does not do from the first sentence alone.

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?

The phrase 'without advancing the state' clearly signals the pre-advance, dry-run style context in which to use this instead of an advancing tool, and the verdict vocabulary tells the caller what to do next on PASS vs FAIL. It stops short of explicitly naming the alternative tool or stating exclusions (e.g. when not to run gate checks at all).

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