anki-mcp-server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Delete deck

anki_delete_deck

Destructive

Delete an Anki deck, its subdecks, and all their cards with a preview-and-token confirmation; the deck is exported to an .apkg backup first for safe re-import.

Instructions

Delete a deck, its subdecks and all their cards. Two-step: preview + token, then call again with confirm_token. The deck is first exported (with review history) to an .apkg in the backup folder, which can be re-imported via Anki's File -> Import.

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_delete_deck"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes
`confirm_token`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Nov 4, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description adds the crucial behavior the agent cannot see: an .apkg backup with review history is written to the backup folder before deletion and can be restored via File -> Import. That is exactly the recovery context needed before performing an irreversible operation.

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, front-loaded with destructive scope, then the call protocol, then the safety net. No filler and nothing important buried.

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 destructive two-parameter tool with an output schema, it covers scope, the two-step confirmation protocol, and backup/recovery behavior. Minor gaps remain around failure modes (nonexistent deck name) and the exact token lifetime, but nothing that would cause a wrong invocation.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameters, and it does explain confirm_token as the second-step token obtained from the preview call, including its default-null absence. It still leaves the token's origin (returned by the first call) and any deck-name naming conventions (subdeck separator) unstated.

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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource plus the exact cascade scope: the deck, its subdecks and all their cards. That scope statement also distinguishes it from the sibling deletion tool anki_delete_notes without either schema being opened.

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?

It spells out the required invocation sequence: a first preview call that yields a token, then a second call with confirm_token. It does not discuss alternatives (e.g., moving notes instead of deleting, or using anki_delete_notes for note-level removal), so the when-not-to-use side is left implicit.

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

Deploy Server