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

anki-connect-mcp

by SolarianGG
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

notes.createMany

notes_createMany

Create multiple Anki notes in one request, with independent per-note results or atomic all-or-nothing batch validation and insertion.

Instructions

Create notes independently, or as one native atomic collection batch.

atomic=true validates the full set including within-batch duplicates, then uses Collection.add_notes. Any failure is a top-level error with indexed issues and no collection changes. Success keeps the same items result shape. Empty input is a no-op.

Anki-Connect method notes.createMany. Scope: collection. Effect: write. Completion: completed. Undo: perItemOrAtomic.

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": {
      "notes": "<notes>"
    },
    "name": "notes_createMany"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
notesYesNotes to create, each shaped like the `notes_create` arguments.
atomicNotrue: preflight the whole batch and add it in one transaction with one undo entry (all or nothing). false (default): each item is committed independently and reports its own result or error.
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

A4.5/5.0
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 the failure contract ('Any failure is a top-level error with indexed issues and no collection changes'), the validation scope (within-batch duplicates), undo granularity (perItemOrAtomic), and an explicit error enum. That is exactly the behavioral context annotations cannot express for a write tool.

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 mode split and the atomic semantics in the first two sentences, then a compact labeled block for method, scope, effect, completion, undo, and errors. The metadata tail is boilerplate-ish but dense and scannable; little 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 3-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers atomicity, failure semantics, undo granularity, no-op input, and the error set. The one soft spot is 'Success keeps the same items result shape', which assumes knowledge of notes_create's return; a brief statement of that shape would close the gap.

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 adds real meaning for `atomic`: full-set preflight, one transaction, one undo entry, all-or-nothing versus per-item commit. It also pins the per-item shape by reference ('each shaped like the notes_create arguments') and covers the empty-input edge case.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ('Create notes') and immediately splits the two operating modes ('independently, or as one native atomic collection batch'), then pins the underlying method ('Anki-Connect method `notes.createMany`'). An agent can distinguish this from the singular sibling notes_create and from notes_validate by the batch/atomic framing.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It clearly states the selector between the two modes: atomic=true validates the full set then commits via Collection.add_notes, atomic=false commits each item independently with its own result or error, and empty input is a no-op. It never explicitly names the sibling notes_create as the choice for a single note, but the batch framing makes the alternative obvious.

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