Anki MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool generates audio, saves it, and returns a filename, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires specific permissions, what happens if the filename already exists, whether there are rate limits, or what format the audio is in. For a tool that creates and saves files with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality: generation, saving location, and return value. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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?

For a tool with 4 parameters, 100% schema coverage, but no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and basic usage but lacks behavioral details (e.g., file overwrite behavior, error conditions) and doesn't explain the return value format beyond 'filename'. Given the complexity of file generation and saving operations, more context would be helpful.

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 doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It implies the parameters are used for generation and saving but provides no additional syntax, format, or usage details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action: 'Generate audio from text and save it to Anki's media collection', which includes both generation and saving. It distinguishes from sibling 'generate_audio' by explicitly mentioning saving to Anki's media collection, and from 'save_media_file' by specifying audio generation from text.

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 provides clear context: 'returning filename for use in cards' indicates this is for Anki card creation. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. 'generate_audio' (which likely doesn't save) or 'save_media_file' (which likely saves existing files). The guidance is implied but not explicit about alternatives.

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