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 but only states what the tool does without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are needed, how it handles non-existent decks, or the format/structure of the returned data. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and appropriately sized for its complexity.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that retrieves structured data. It doesn't explain what 'note types (models) and their field definitions' means in practice, what the return format looks like, or any error conditions. For a data retrieval tool with rich output expected, this leaves too much unspecified.

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 parameter 'deck_name' is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., no examples, format constraints, or relationship to output). The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate coverage through the schema alone.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('note types (models) and their field definitions') with specific scope ('used in a specific deck'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_note_types' by specifying deck-specific retrieval, but doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_deck_notes' which retrieves notes rather than note types.

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 when needing note types for a particular deck, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'list_note_types' (which might list all note types regardless of deck) or 'get_deck_notes' (which retrieves actual notes). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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