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

anki-connect-mcp

by SolarianGG
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

reviewer.showQuestion

reviewer_showQuestion

Displays the question side of the current reviewer card without answering. Use it to reveal the prompt before grading or to return a card to its question state.

Instructions

Show the question for the active reviewer card.

Anki-Connect method reviewer.showQuestion. 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_showQuestion"
  }
}

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

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: scope (collection), effect class (gui), synchronous completion, and that the action is not undoable, plus a concrete enumeration of possible errors including conflict and staleSession. This usefully clarifies why readOnlyHint=false despite a 'show' verb — it mutates GUI/view state. It stops short of saying whether the supplied stateToken is consumed or invalidated afterward.

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 one-sentence purpose, followed by a compact metadata line and a single error enumeration. No redundant restatement of the title. The metadata block is dense but each line (scope, effect, completion, undo) carries distinct information.

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?

With no output schema, the description leaves the return value entirely unspecified — whether it returns the question HTML, card fields, or nothing observable. It also does not say whether calling this changes the expected next call (e.g. consuming stateToken). Safety and error behavior are well covered, so this is adequate but incomplete for a state-token-driven GUI action.

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% and both parameters carry thorough inline descriptions (session fallback and staleSession semantics, stateToken provenance from reviewer_get). The prose itself adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 question for the active reviewer card.' An agent can distinguish it from reviewer_showAnswer by resource, and the scoping to the 'active' card is explicit. It never names the sibling alternative directly, which keeps it just short of 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 through 'active reviewer card' — there is no statement of when to call this versus reviewer_showAnswer, reviewer_answer, or reviewer_get, nor a prerequisite that a review session must be active. The invalidState/staleSession error list hints at preconditions but does not articulate them.

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