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

anki-connect-mcp

by SolarianGG
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

decks.create

decks_create

Create a normal Anki deck by name; returns the existing deck when an exact-name deck already exists. Use hierarchical names with :: for subdecks.

Instructions

Create a normal deck, returning the existing deck for an exact existing name.

Anki-Connect method decks.create. Scope: collection. Effect: write. Completion: completed. Undo: single.

Possible errors: collectionUnavailable, conflict, editorConflict, internalError, invalidParams, 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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "decks_create"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesFull deck name; `::` separates levels, 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

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (which only say it is a non-destructive write), the description discloses scope (collection), completion state (completed), and undo support (single) — the last being genuinely actionable for an agent planning mutations. It also enumerates concrete failure modes (collectionUnavailable, conflict, editorConflict, staleSession), which is behavior no structured field provides.

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 core behavior is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by compact labeled metadata and an error list; nearly every line carries information. The telegraphic "Scope/Effect/Completion/Undo" style is dense but readable and not padded.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, idempotency, undo, scope, and error taxonomy — everything an agent needs to call it correctly and handle failures. Nothing material is missing.

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 still adds meaning by clarifying that name matching is exact and that a collision returns the existing deck rather than failing. That changes how an agent should interpret the required name parameter and whether to retry.

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 ("Create a normal deck") and adds a precise edge-case behavior: an exact existing name returns the existing deck rather than erroring. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like decks_update or decks_list, so it stays one step short of full sibling differentiation.

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 through the stated effect and the idempotent-name behavior, which does help an agent decide whether a pre-check with decks_list is needed. There is no explicit when-to-use versus decks_update or deck-preset tools, and no stated preconditions beyond the schema's session field.

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