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

anki-connect-mcp

by SolarianGG
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

noteTypes.update

noteTypes_update

Update non-structural settings of an Anki note type by ID or name, including its name, CSS, sort field, and LaTeX header/footer.

Instructions

Update nonstructural note-type settings.

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

Possible errors: collectionUnavailable, editorConflict, internalError, invalidParams, notFound, 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": {
      "noteType": "<noteType>",
      "patch": "<patch>"
    },
    "name": "noteTypes_update"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
patchYesNon-structural changes: {name?, css?, sortField?, latexHeader?, latexFooter?, latexSvg?}. Must not be empty.
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.
noteTypeYesNote type: exactly one of {"id": "<noteTypeId>"} or {"name": "<note type name, e.g. Basic>"}.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/destructive/openWorld, yet the description adds real value: scope (collection), effect (write), completion status, undo granularity ("single"), and a concrete enumeration of error names including `staleSession` and `editorConflict`. What is missing is whether the patch is a merge that leaves unlisted settings untouched.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded verb+resource in the first sentence, followed by terse labeled metadata (Scope/Effect/Completion/Undo) and an error list. No filler, and every line carries distinct information.

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 mutation tool with a nested object, the description covers safety, reversibility, session semantics (via schema), and failure modes. The one gap is that no output schema exists and nothing states what the call returns on success.

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%, and the nested patch object plus the noteType oneOf are already well documented in the schema (including the session ID rationale). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Update nonstructural note-type settings"), and the qualifier "nonstructural" implicitly separates it from the structural-edit sibling. It never names `noteTypes_editStructure` explicitly, so the differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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?

The word "nonstructural" implies when this tool is appropriate versus a structural edit, and the patch field description enumerates which settings qualify. However, there is no explicit guidance naming the alternative tool or stating when-not to use this one, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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