anki-mcp-server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Rename profile

anki_rename_profile

Destructive

Change your Anki profile name. This tool renames the active profile by briefly restarting Anki, preserving all cards, history, and add-ons during the process.

Instructions

Rename the current Anki profile (e.g. the default "User 1"). Anki briefly closes and reopens the collection, like File -> Switch Profile, and syncs if sync-on-open/close is enabled. Cards, history, add-ons and the AnkiWeb login are kept. Two-step: preview + token. Needs the bridge add-on.

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": {
      "new_name": "<new_name>"
    },
    "name": "anki_rename_profile"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`new_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

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description does add real context beyond that — the collection briefly closing like File -> Switch Profile, sync firing if sync-on-open/close is enabled, and the reassurance that cards, history, add-ons and AnkiWeb login survive. Not contradictory with destructiveHint (state changes without data loss), but it does not say how failures mid-rename are handled.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by consequences and requirements, with no filler. Slight density loss from cramming prerequisites and side effects into one block rather than separating them, but nothing is wasted.

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 two-parameter mutation with an output schema already handling return values, the description covers the essentials: prerequisite add-on, side effects, and the two-step confirmation. The remaining gap is the mechanics of the token step, which an agent must infer.

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 carry the param burden. "Two-step: preview + token" hints that confirm_token is a second-phase confirmation obtained after a preview, and new_name is self-evident from "rename", but neither the token's acquisition path nor any name constraints (length, allowed characters, collision with an existing profile) are stated.

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?

"Rename the current Anki profile" gives a specific verb and a scoped resource, with a concrete example (the default "User 1") that removes ambiguity about what a profile is. It is trivially distinguishable from the nearest sibling, anki_rename_deck, because the resource is named 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?

The description supplies a clear operating context: it is a two-step preview + token flow, it requires the bridge add-on, and it triggers a collection close/reopen plus a possible sync. What is missing is an explicit when-not-to-use or a pointer to any alternative tool; the guidance is procedural rather than comparative.

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

Deploy Server