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

anki-connect-mcp

by SolarianGG
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

reviewer.answer

reviewer_answer

Answer the active Anki review card using its retained review state and a chosen rating, then wait for backend completion and UI notifications before confirming success or veto.

Instructions

Answer the active card using reviewer-retained states and await actual completion.

Requires answer side and an offered rating. Do not resolve success until backend completion and UI notifications; reviewer hook veto returns vetoed.

Anki-Connect method reviewer.answer. Scope: collection. Effect: write. Completion: operation. Undo: single.

Long-running operation: by default the server waits for the final result (see waitForCompletion / timeoutSeconds).

Possible errors: collectionUnavailable, conflict, editorConflict, internalError, invalidParams, invalidState, staleSession, vetoed.

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": {
      "stateToken": "<stateToken>",
      "rating": "<rating>"
    },
    "name": "reviewer_answer"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ratingYesAnswer button: again, hard, good or easy.
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.
stateTokenYesCurrent `stateToken` from `reviewer_get`, taken after the answer is shown.
timeoutSecondsNoMCP option (not sent to Anki): how long to wait for completion. A timeout does not cancel the work; the pending record is returned.
waitForCompletionNoMCP option (not sent to Anki): poll operations.get until the operation finishes and return its final record. If false, return the operation handle.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (which only mark it as a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world write), the description discloses effect=write, completion=operation, single-step undo, long-running default behavior with waitForCompletion/timeoutSeconds, the hook-veto path returning 'vetoed', and an explicit error enum. That is exactly the extra context annotations cannot convey.

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 action and its blocking semantics are front-loaded, and the terse metadata lines (scope/effect/completion/undo) are dense but useful. The description is slightly telegraphic and repeats the timeout behavior in both prose and parameter docs, but wastes little space overall.

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 mutating, blocking operation with no output schema, the definition covers completion semantics, veto outcome, undo depth, and the error surface. It stops short of describing what a completed answer returns (e.g. the next card/stateToken), which an agent must know to chain into the next reviewer call.

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 a constraint not in the schema: the rating must be one *offered* for that card (the schema merely lists all four enum values). It also reiterates that stateToken is the post-answer token from reviewer_get and flags the two MCP-only wait parameters, though without adding syntax detail.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Answer the active card') and scopes it to reviewer-retained state, which separates it in spirit from siblings like scheduling_answer or reviewer_showAnswer. It never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings, so an agent must infer that this only applies to the card currently displayed in the reviewer.

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?

Prerequisites are stated clearly: an answer side must be shown, an offered rating is required, and the stateToken must come from reviewer_get after the answer is revealed. It does not name an alternative tool or state when *not* to use this one (e.g. bulk/non-reviewer answering via scheduling_answer), leaving that routing to inference.

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