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

anki-workflow-mcp

by Gugart43
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Validate Crossrefs

validate_crossrefs

Checks cross-references in field text and flags IDs that do not resolve, helping catch broken links before flashcards are compiled.

Instructions

Check cross-references in any field text. active_ids and current_batch_ids are comma-separated ID strings. XREF.BROKEN is emitted for IDs that do not resolve.

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": {
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "validate_crossrefs"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rowNo
textYes
fieldNo
active_idsNo
current_batch_idsNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.1

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that an XREF.BROKEN diagnostic is emitted for IDs that do not resolve, which is real behavioral insight, but it never states whether the tool is read-only, whether it throws or returns findings, or how severity is reported overall.

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?

Three short sentences with zero filler: scope first, then parameter format, then the emitted diagnostic code. Every sentence adds information that is not repeated from structured data.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the XREF.BROKEN mention is a helpful bonus. However, for a five-parameter validator with no annotations and no schema descriptions, the definition leaves the roles of text, field, and row (and the relationship between active_ids and current_batch_ids) entirely to inference.

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 coverage is 0% across five parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains the format of active_ids and current_batch_ids (comma-separated ID strings) and ties them implicitly to the resolution check, but leaves row, field, and the required text parameter completely unexplained.

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?

"Check cross-references in any field text" names a specific verb (check/validate) and a specific resource (cross-references), which distinguishes it cleanly from siblings like validate_cloze or validate_qa that check other content types. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling to use for other validation scopes.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The phrase "in any field text" implies broad applicability, but there is no explicit when-to-use condition, no prerequisites (e.g., where active_ids come from), and no mention of alternatives such as validate_batch for whole batches. The agent must infer routing from the sibling names alone.

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