anki-mcp-server

by MeisamHakimi

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

Create deck

anki_create_deck

Idempotent

Create a new Anki deck or nested subdeck using Parent::Child naming; the action is skipped if the deck already exists.

Instructions

Create a deck. Use "Parent::Child" for subdecks. Does nothing if it already exists.

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "anki_create_deck"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Nov 4, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description adds the concrete consequence — a duplicate name is a silent no-op rather than an error — which is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot express. It doesn't say which profile the deck lands in or whether the new deck becomes active, but the mutation risk profile is well covered.

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, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the naming format given immediately after. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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 need no explanation, and the idempotency and naming semantics are covered. The only minor gap is not stating which profile or parent context the deck is created in, which matters for a multi-profile toolset.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for the single required parameter, so the description must compensate. It does so by specifying the "Parent::Child" naming syntax for subdecks, which is non-obvious format information the schema does not convey.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Create a deck") that cleanly distinguishes it from sibling mutation tools like anki_rename_deck and anki_delete_deck. It doesn't explicitly name those siblings, but the create-versus-modify distinction is unambiguous from the verb alone.

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?

Implied usage is clear from the verb, and "Does nothing if it already exists" tells the agent the call is safe to repeat. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over anki_rename_deck or how it relates to importing/deck selection flows, so guidance remains inferential.

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

Deploy Server