Anki MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers minimal insight. It implies a read-only operation ('Get') but doesn't specify aspects like whether it returns all notes at once (potential pagination issues), error handling for non-existent decks, or data format (e.g., structured vs. raw). This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with user data.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for effective tool use. It doesn't address key contextual aspects like return format (e.g., list of notes, error responses), performance considerations (e.g., large deck handling), or how it differs from siblings, leaving the agent under-informed for a data retrieval operation.

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?

The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond what the input schema already provides (100% coverage). It mentions 'a specific deck' which aligns with the 'deck_name' parameter but doesn't clarify semantics like case sensitivity, deck naming conventions, or validation rules. With high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 target resource ('all notes/cards from a specific deck'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from similar siblings like 'get_deck_sample' or 'find_similar_notes', which might also retrieve notes with different scopes or filters.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., deck existence), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'get_deck_sample' (which might retrieve a subset) or 'find_similar_notes' (which likely filters content), leaving the agent to infer usage from tool names alone.

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