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

anki-mcp-server

by MeisamHakimi
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Move notes

anki_move_notes
Destructive

Move notes and all their cards to another existing deck while preserving review history; choose note IDs or an Anki search query, then confirm a preview.

Instructions

Move notes (all their cards, keeping review history) to another existing deck. Give note_ids OR an Anki search query. Two-step: preview + token, then call again with confirm_token.

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": {
      "target_deck": "<target_deck>"
    },
    "name": "anki_move_notes"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryNo
note_idsNo
target_deckYes
confirm_tokenNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent behavior, but the description adds genuinely useful context they do not carry: cards move with their notes, review history is preserved, the destination must already exist, and the operation is gated by a preview/confirm_token flow. It stops short of saying what the preview returns or what happens on an expired or mismatched token.

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 the effect and consequence (history preserved), then input selection, then the required call sequence. No padding or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 four-parameter mutation with an output schema, the definition covers the essentials: what changes, what is preserved, where it goes, and the confirmation protocol. The main omissions are error conditions (nonexistent target deck, invalid or reused token) and what the preview step returns, which the output schema presumably covers.

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 load, and it does: note_ids and query are framed as alternative selectors, target_deck is constrained to an existing deck, and confirm_token is tied to the second step of the workflow. It does not state that at least one selector is effectively required or give query syntax, so a small gap remains.

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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ("Move notes") plus the scope of what travels with them ("all their cards, keeping review history") and the destination constraint ("another existing deck"). It is clearly separable from siblings like anki_update_notes or anki_delete_notes, though it does not name those alternatives explicitly.

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?

"Give note_ids OR an Anki search query" tells the agent how to select the input mode, and the two-step preview-plus-token sequence gives a concrete procedural context. What is missing is guidance on when to prefer this over siblings such as anki_update_notes, or what to do if neither selection method is supplied.

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