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

anki-mcp-server

by MeisamHakimi
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Anki status

anki_status
Read-only

Check AnkiConnect connectivity and return the version, active profile, decks, note types with fields, and available optional features.

Instructions

Check the connection. Returns the AnkiConnect version, current profile (if the bridge add-on is installed), decks, note types with their fields, and which optional features are available.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "anki_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered, and the description adds real context beyond them: the call reports the AnkiConnect version, the current profile only 'if the bridge add-on is installed', deck/note-type structure, and which optional features are available. That conditional-availability detail is genuinely useful for an agent deciding whether other tools will work, though nothing is said about cost, latency, or failure behavior when the connection is down.

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?

Two sentences with the action front-loaded, and the return-content enumeration follows. The list of surfaced artifacts is somewhat long given an output schema exists, but it earns its place by telling the agent what capability information it can obtain, so it is not padding.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-argument, read-only status tool with an output schema, a false openWorldHint, and full annotation coverage, nothing material is missing. The description covers the diagnostic purpose, the conditional profile field, and the scope of returned information; return-value structure is handled by the output schema.

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 tool takes zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 4 applies and the description has no parameters whose meaning it needs to disambiguate. It correctly spends no words on argument syntax.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Check the connection') and then enumerates what the call surfaces: AnkiConnect version, profile, decks, note types with fields, and optional feature availability. That makes it distinguishable from the mutating and listing siblings, but it never explicitly frames itself as the diagnostic/health-check entry point relative to tools like anki_tts_status or anki_install_bridge.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is a pre-flight/connectivity check from 'Check the connection', but the description never says when to call it (e.g., before other operations, on failure) nor names any alternative. No exclusions or prerequisites are given, so the agent must infer the workflow position.

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