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

anki-connect-mcp

by SolarianGG
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

scheduling.answerMany

scheduling_answerMany

Answers multiple Anki cards in one call by applying the supplied ratings in input order.

Instructions

Answer cards independently in input order.

Anki-Connect method scheduling.answerMany. Scope: collection. Effect: write. Completion: completed. Undo: perItem.

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": {
      "answers": "<answers>"
    },
    "name": "scheduling_answerMany"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
answersYesAnswers [{cardId, rating, stateToken, elapsedMs?}], each like the `scheduling_answer` arguments.
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

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description goes further with scope (collection), effect (write), completion mode (completed), and undo granularity (perItem), plus the concrete failure set including staleSession and conflict. The notable remaining gap is what happens when only some cards fail — whether the call aborts or returns per-item outcomes.

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?

One sentence of intent followed by labeled metadata lines; no filler, and the operation-defining statement is front-loaded. The telegraphic error enumeration is dense but scannable.

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 batch write with no output schema, the definition covers scope, effect, undo semantics, and the error surface, which is the core of what an agent needs. It falls short only on partial-failure and return-value behavior for the many-case, which matters precisely because it differs from the single-card tool.

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?

The input schema already documents every field at 100% coverage and describes `answers` as being like `scheduling_answer` arguments, so the description need not compensate. It does add the meaningful ordering guarantee that the schema does not state, which is a modest value add above the baseline.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Answer cards'), plus a batch dimension ('independently in input order') that distinguishes the operation from the single-card `scheduling_answer` sibling. The Anki-Connect method name reinforces it, but the description never explicitly names `scheduling_answer` as the single-item counterpart.

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?

Ordering semantics ('in input order', 'independently') imply the batch use case, and the error list implicitly sketches failure modes. However, it never says when to prefer this over `scheduling_answer` or `reviewer_answer`, nor any preconditions such as needing fresh state tokens from `scheduling_get`.

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