Anki MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'simple and reliable text matching' but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what happens if no matches are found. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is appropriately sized with two concise sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose ('Find notes that contain the search text as a substring in any field') followed by a qualifier ('Simple and reliable text matching'). Every sentence earns its place without waste.

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

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

Given the tool's moderate complexity (search function with 4 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic operation but lacks details on return values, error cases, or behavioral traits, leaving gaps for an AI agent to fully understand the tool's context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

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 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by reinforcing 'search text as a substring in any field', which aligns with the schema but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details beyond what's in the structured data.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Find notes') and resource ('notes'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying 'simple and reliable text matching' as a substring search across any field, unlike other tools that create, update, or list decks/notes without searching.

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

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

The description implies usage for text-based substring searches in notes, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_deck_notes' (which might list notes without searching) or other search-related tools not present in siblings. No exclusions or clear alternatives are provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.