anki-connect-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

noteTypes.create

noteTypes_create

Creates a normal or cloze note type in Anki with defined fields, templates, and CSS, enabling reusable note structures for new cards.

Instructions

Create a normal or cloze note type.

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

Possible errors: collectionUnavailable, conflict, editorConflict, internalError, invalidParams, staleSession, validationFailed.

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>",
      "fields": "<fields>",
      "templates": "<templates>"
    },
    "name": "noteTypes_create"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`css`	No	Card styling shared by all templates.
`kind`	No	`normal` or `cloze`. Default normal.	normal
`name`	Yes	Name of the new note type.
`fields`	Yes	Ordered field definitions [{name, ...}].
`session`	No	Optional. 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.
`latexSvg`	No	Render LaTeX as SVG instead of PNG. Default false.
`sortField`	No	Name of the field shown in the browser's sort column. Default: the first field.
`templates`	Yes	Card templates [{name, questionHtml, answerHtml}]; field references use {{Field}} syntax.
`latexFooter`	No	LaTeX postamble.
`latexHeader`	No	LaTeX preamble.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 3, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), the description discloses scope (collection), effect (write), completion semantics, and crucially "Undo: single", telling the agent the operation is reversible via collection_undo. It also enumerates the concrete failure modes (collectionUnavailable, conflict, editorConflict, staleSession, validationFailed), which is exactly the context an agent needs before committing a write.

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 compact blocks: purpose first, then a dense metadata/error contract. Nothing is padded, though the run-on list of error codes is less scannable than a structured list would be.

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 10-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers safety, undo, and failure modes well. The one gap is that it never says what the call returns (presumably the created note type or its id), which an agent needs to chain into follow-up calls.

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%, including detailed notes on `session` and `templates`, so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description adds no field-level semantics beyond restating that the kind may be normal or cloze, so the baseline 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 description opens with a precise verb+resource statement ("Create a normal or cloze note type") and names the two supported kinds, which separates it from noteTypes_update and noteTypes_editStructure by verb alone. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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: the word "Create" plus the enumerated error `conflict` hints that the note type must not already exist. There is no explicit statement about when to choose this over noteTypes_update, noteTypes_editStructure, or noteTypes_list for inspection, and no prerequisites are spelled out.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server