anki-workflow-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Validate Cloze

validate_cloze

Validates cloze syntax in a 'Sentença' field by checking sequential c1..cN indices and nested deletions, then returns card counts, diagnostics, and per-index information profiles.

Instructions

Validate cloze syntax in a 'Sentença' field value. Checks: sequential c1..cN indices (operational cap 3; each index creates a separate Anki card with other indices visible), no nested deletions, boundary/length advisory WARN signals (length alone never proves atomicity and a single gap can hide a list). Returns: status, detected indices, card_count (= distinct cN), diagnostics, and information_profile (per-index 3-layer breakdown, candidate_items, 6-question checklist; read-only, no quality score).

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": {
      "sentence": "<sentence>"
    },
    "name": "validate_cloze"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`row`	No
`sentence`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.1Nov 14, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does it well: it states the operation is read-only, that it produces no quality score, the operational cap of 3 indices, that each index creates a separate Anki card, and that length/advisory signals are heuristic rather than proof. It also warns about false negatives ('a single gap can hide a list'), which is exactly the kind of behavioral caveat an agent cannot get from structured fields.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, which is good, but the rest is one dense run-on paragraph with heavy parentheticals. Listing return fields such as diagnostics and information_profile is partly wasted effort because an output schema already exists, and the atomicity/length rationale clause adds bulk that could be trimmed.

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 two-parameter validator with an output schema, the description covers checks, mutation/safety posture, index-to-card implications, and advisory caveats, so an agent can call it correctly. The remaining gaps are the unexplained 'row' parameter and the lack of any statement about expected input format (e.g., how cloze markers are written in the string).

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 partly does: it clarifies that 'sentence' is a 'Sentença' field value containing cloze syntax with c1..cN indices and deletions, which adds real meaning. The 'row' parameter (integer, default 0) is never mentioned or explained, leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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?

Names a specific verb (validate) and a specific resource (cloze syntax inside a 'Sentença' field value), then enumerates exactly what is checked (c1..cN sequencing, nested deletions, boundary advisories). It is distinguishable from siblings like validate_tags_field or validate_qa by the named field and syntax, though it never explicitly states which alternatives exist.

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: an agent can infer this runs before compiling cloze cards to catch bad index sequences. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing against sibling validators such as validate_batch or batch_auto_fix.

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

Deploy Server