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

anki-connect-mcp

by SolarianGG
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

cards.move

cards_move

Move Anki cards to an existing normal deck by card ID and destination deck name or ID, restoring cards' native state first when leaving a filtered deck.

Instructions

Move cards with Collection.set_deck and target-preset invariants.

Target must already exist and be normal. Moving out of a filtered deck restores native state first through the native move operation.

Anki-Connect method cards.move. Scope: collection. Effect: write. Completion: completed. Undo: perItem.

Possible errors: collectionUnavailable, editorConflict, internalError, invalidParams, invalidState, notFound, staleSession.

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": {
      "ids": "<ids>",
      "deck": "<deck>"
    },
    "name": "cards_move"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idsYesCard IDs (decimal string, e.g. "1700000000001").
deckYesDestination deck: exactly one of {"id": "<deckId>"} or {"name": "<full deck name, e.g. Japanese::Verbs>"}.
sessionNoOptional. Collection session ID: the `session` field returned by `collection_get`. Usually omit it — the server then uses the session current at the time of the call. Pass it to make the call fail with `staleSession` instead of acting on a different profile/collection than the one your IDs, cursors and tokens came from.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (which only say readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=false), the description adds the write effect, per-item undo semantics, completion state, collection scope, the filtered-deck restoration behavior, and an enumerated error set including staleSession and editorConflict. That is unusually rich disclosure of side effects and failure modes for a mutation tool.

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?

The operative constraints are front-loaded and the trailing metadata (method, scope, effect, undo, errors) is terse and scannable. The opening phrase "with Collection.set_deck and target-preset invariants" is dense jargon that costs a little clarity for the sake of brevity.

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 3-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers preconditions, side effects, undo, and error cases thoroughly. The remaining gap is that it never indicates what the call returns on success (e.g. a moved count or per-id status), which an agent needs since no output schema exists.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: the deck argument must resolve to an existing, non-filtered deck, which is not expressed in the oneOf id/name schema. The ids parameter gets no extra semantics beyond the schema's decimal-string format.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ("Move cards") and grounds it in the underlying operation (Collection.set_deck), which distinguishes it from sibling mutations like cards_setSuspended or cards_setFlags. An agent knows immediately what this does without reading the schema.

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 states a concrete precondition — the target deck "must already exist and be normal" — which tells the agent when the call will fail and implies deck creation must happen first. It does not name an explicit alternative (e.g. decks_create for a missing deck) or say when not to use this versus another move path, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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