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

anki-workflow-mcp

by Gugart43
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Validate Images Field

validate_images_field

Validates the 'Imagens Relacionadas' HTML field, flagging malformed figures, phantom images, duplicate/noisy captions, and invalid namespace prefixes.

Instructions

Validate the 'Imagens Relacionadas' HTML field. Checks: IMG.CAP_OVER (>3), IMG.PHANTOM (src not in catalog), IMG.NAMESPACE (invalid slug prefix), IMG.DUP_IN_CARD, IMG.STRUCTURE ( malformed), IMG.CAPTION (empty/noisy). catalog_filenames: comma-separated list of valid namespaced filenames. Without it, a field containing returns status INCOMPLETE (phantom unverifiable).

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": {
      "html": "<html>"
    },
    "name": "validate_images_field"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rowNo
htmlYes
catalog_filenamesNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.1

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
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 exact check codes, the malformed <figure> and empty-caption conditions, and crucially the fallback behavior (status INCOMPLETE when <img> is present but the catalog is absent). It does not state that the operation is read-only/non-mutating, which is the main remaining gap.

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 purpose, then a compact list of check codes, then the catalog parameter note. Dense but every sentence carries information; the code identifiers are terse but functional rather than filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values and the INCOMPLETE status need not be spelled out further. What remains missing for a three-parameter validator is the meaning of 'row' and confirmation of read-only behavior, but otherwise the definition gives an agent enough to invoke it correctly.

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. It explains catalog_filenames thoroughly (comma-separated, namespaced, drives phantom verification) and 'html' implicitly as the field content, but the third parameter 'row' is never mentioned, leaving one of three parameters with no meaning beyond its name and default.

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: validate the 'Imagens Relacionadas' HTML field. The enumerated check codes (IMG.CAP_OVER, IMG.PHANTOM, IMG.NAMESPACE, etc.) make it unmistakable which field and which rule family it covers, distinguishing it from siblings such as validate_tags_field or validate_tables_field.

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?

The field-specific scope implies when to use it, and it gives a clear precondition for full validation ('without catalog_filenames ... returns INCOMPLETE'). However, it never explicitly says when to call this versus the sibling field validators or batch_auto_fix, nor does it name any alternative.

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