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

anki-connect-mcp

by SolarianGG
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

cards.render

cards_render
Read-only

Render a stored Anki card by ID to produce its HTML as Anki displays it, enabling preview or downstream processing of the card content.

Instructions

Render a stored card with Anki rendering.

Anki-Connect method cards.render. Scope: collection. Effect: read. Completion: completed. Undo: none.

Possible errors: collectionUnavailable, internalError, invalidParams, 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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "cards_render"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesCard ID (decimal string, e.g. "1700000000001").
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

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value with the scope (collection), completion status, undo: none, and a concrete error vocabulary including staleSession and notFound. It does not, however, explain what 'render' actually produces (HTML? media references?), which is the main behavioral unknown.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then a compact metadata block, then an error list — easy to scan with no filler prose. The error enumeration is slightly boilerplate but is genuinely informative rather than padding.

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

Completeness3/5

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

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return value, and it never does — an agent cannot tell whether it gets HTML, a media list, or a structured object. Everything else an agent needs (safety, scope, errors, parameter semantics via schema) is present, so this is a single but meaningful gap.

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 100%, so both the card id format and the session semantics are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds nothing beyond that, which is acceptable at this coverage level but earns only the baseline.

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 ("Render a stored card") and names the underlying method, so the operation is unambiguous. It is weaker on sibling differentiation: it never contrasts with cards_get or cards_search, which also take a card id, so an agent must infer that this one produces rendered output rather than raw fields.

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 implied rather than stated — 'render' suggests wanting display-ready output, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no named alternative. The scope/effect/undo header gives useful framing but does not tell the agent which sibling to pick.

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