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

anki-connect-mcp

by SolarianGG
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

reviewer.showAnswer

reviewer_showAnswer

Reveals the answer for the active Anki reviewer card so you can inspect the card content before grading it.

Instructions

Show the answer for the active reviewer card.

Anki-Connect method reviewer.showAnswer. Scope: collection. Effect: gui. Completion: completed. Undo: none.

Possible errors: collectionUnavailable, conflict, internalError, invalidParams, invalidState, 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": {
      "stateToken": "<stateToken>"
    },
    "name": "reviewer_showAnswer"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
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`.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false. The description adds real value beyond that: GUI effect ('Effect: gui'), 'Undo: none', completion semantics, collection scope, and an enumerated error set including staleSession and invalidState. It still doesn't say whether the call requires an active reviewer session or what it returns.

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?

Two compact blocks: a one-line purpose followed by structured metadata (scope, effect, completion, undo, errors). Front-loaded, zero filler, and each metadata token carries distinct operational meaning.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, yet the description never states what a successful call returns — notably whether a new `stateToken` is issued, which matters because the sibling flow is token-chained. The error list and effect disclosure are good, but the return-value gap leaves the definition incomplete for chaining calls correctly.

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 coverage is 100% — both `session` and `stateToken` are fully documented in the schema, including the staleSession rationale. The description adds nothing about parameters, 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: 'Show the answer for the active reviewer card.' An agent can distinguish this from reviewer_showQuestion and reviewer_answer by the resource (answer vs question vs grading). It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it falls just short of 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?

The phrase 'active reviewer card' implies a live review session context, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of reviewer_showQuestion as the alternative operation. The agent must infer the pairing from the tool name alone.

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