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

anki-connect-mcp

by SolarianGG
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

decks.update

decks_update

Rename an Anki deck by ID or current full name, setting a new hierarchical name with :: separators to reorganize collection structure.

Instructions

Rename a deck using native hierarchy handling.

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

Possible errors: collectionUnavailable, conflict, editorConflict, 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": {
      "deck": "<deck>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "decks_update"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
deckYesDeck: exactly one of {"id": "<deckId>"} or {"name": "<full deck name, e.g. Japanese::Verbs>"}.
nameYesNew full deck name; `::` separates levels.
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

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The description adds real context beyond the annotations: "Scope: collection", "Effect: write", "Completion: completed", "Undo: single" tells the agent the rename is reversible via collection_undo, and the enumerated error list (conflict, notFound, staleSession) flags failure modes. What it omits is the behavior implied by "native hierarchy handling" — e.g. what happens to subdecks under the renamed parent — and whether an existing name causes a conflict rather than a merge.

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 operational sentence is front-loaded and terse, followed by a compact metadata block. The error-code enumeration is somewhat boilerplate but earns its place by naming specific recoverable failures, and no sentence 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-required-parameter mutation with no output schema, the definition covers scope, write effect, undo semantics, and error surface, and the schema handles all parameter detail. The remaining gap is behavioral specificity around hierarchy renaming and name collisions, which the error list gestures at but never explains.

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 deck (id-or-name union), name (with `::` separators), and session are all documented in the schema itself. The description adds only the loose hint "native hierarchy handling" and otherwise contributes nothing about parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource ("Rename a deck") plus the qualifier "native hierarchy handling", which separates it from decks_create, decks_delete, and decks_list without needing the schema. It stops short of naming an explicit alternative, so it is strong but not maximal.

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: an agent can infer this is the tool for changing an existing deck's name, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or comparison against siblings such as decks_create (new deck) or deckPresets_update (settings). No prerequisites or preconditions are mentioned.

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