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

anki-connect-mcp

by SolarianGG
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

scheduling.answer

scheduling_answer

Answers an Anki card with a rating and prediction state token, rejecting suspended, buried, or filtered-preview cards.

Instructions

Answer using native states matching the supplied prediction token.

Reject suspended/buried and filtered-preview cards. For the active GUI card use reviewer.answer. Native elapsed-time capping applies. No client-supplied historical answer timestamp.

Anki-Connect method scheduling.answer. Scope: collection. Effect: write. Completion: completed. Undo: single.

Possible errors: collectionUnavailable, conflict, editorConflict, internalError, invalidParams, invalidState, notFound, 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": {
      "cardId": "<cardId>",
      "rating": "<rating>",
      "stateToken": "<stateToken>"
    },
    "name": "scheduling_answer"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cardIdYesCard ID (decimal string, e.g. "1700000000001").
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.
elapsedMsNoTime spent on the card in milliseconds, recorded in review history. Default 0.
stateTokenYes`stateToken` from `scheduling_predict` for this card, obtained immediately before answering.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the write-related annotations, it discloses collection scope, completion and single-step undo behavior, rejected card states, native elapsed-time capping, and the prohibition on client-supplied historical timestamps. The error catalog further supports anticipation and handling of failures.

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 most important selection and rejection rules are front-loaded, and the short paragraphs are easy to scan. The Anki-Connect method and write-effect lines partly repeat structured metadata, while the compact error list adds some density.

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?

The full schema, explicit preconditions, alternative GUI tool, undo semantics, and error list provide strong support for correct invocation. The main gaps are the lack of success-result detail despite having no output schema and no explicit differentiation from scheduling_answerMany.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters. The description adds useful meaning by connecting the answer to the prediction token's native states and explaining elapsed-time capping, but most parameter details remain schema-driven.

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 identifies the operation as answering through native scheduling states tied to a prediction token, and the card-specific restrictions make the target resource clear. It also distinguishes this operation from reviewer.answer for the active GUI card.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It explicitly states that suspended, buried, and filtered-preview cards are rejected, providing concrete when-not-to-use guidance. It also routes active GUI reviews to reviewer.answer rather than leaving the agent to choose between siblings by 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