Skip to main content
Glama
ctjmaxwell

Anki Flashcard MCP

by ctjmaxwell
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Local

Server Quality Checklist

50%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.1.0

  • Disambiguation3/5

    The two tools are clearly distinguished by single vs. batch operation, and the descriptions explicitly state when to use each. However, there is still some ambiguity since both serve the same fundamental purpose (adding notes to a deck), and an agent might reasonably pick either for a single-note add when the batch tool would also work.

    Naming Consistency3/5

    Both tools follow a verb_noun style with 'add' as the verb, which is consistent. However, the naming is somewhat redundant ('add_anki_note' vs 'add_multiple_anki_notes') rather than a clean noun-based pattern like 'create_note' and 'create_notes', and the repetition of 'anki' in both is verbose.

    Tool Count1/5

    Only two tools exist, and they cover only the 'add' operation. For a flashcard MCP server, this is extremely thin — there are no tools to retrieve, update, delete, search, or review notes or decks. A server this narrow is difficult to justify as useful for real workflows.

    Completeness1/5

    The surface only supports adding notes. There are no get/update/delete operations for notes, no deck management, no card review/study operations, and no search capability. This is a severely incomplete surface for managing Anki flashcards and will cause agents to hit dead ends immediately after adding content.

  • Average 3.1/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI is passing

  • Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.

    If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.

    MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior2/5

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

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. As a mutation tool adding notes, it doesn't disclose what happens on success/failure, whether duplicates are allowed, deck creation behavior, or Anki connectivity requirements. Very little behavioral context beyond the bare operation.

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

    Conciseness4/5

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

    The description is compact and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first line. The parameter list uses a clean :param format. One could argue it's slightly over-formatted with whitespace, but it's reasonably efficient.

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

    Completeness2/5

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

    This is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema. With 0% schema description coverage, the tool relies entirely on this description, which lacks important details: error handling, duplicate behavior, tag format requirements, and return value. Incomplete for a tool with 4 parameters including a complex array type.

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

    Parameters2/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    Schema coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It lists parameters (deck, front, back, tags) but only with terse one-liners that essentially restate the parameter names without adding meaning. No examples, no format requirements for tags or deck names, no size limits for front/back content.

    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 it 'Adds a SINGLE Anki note' with a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from the sibling add_multiple_anki_notes by emphasizing 'SINGLE' and 'Use this for adding one card at a time,' though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling.

    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?

    The description implies usage context ('one card at a time') which provides implicit distinction from the multi-add sibling. However, it doesn't explicitly say when NOT to use this tool or name the alternative tool add_multiple_anki_notes directly.

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

  • Behavior2/5

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

    There are no annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It claims efficiency but doesn't describe edge behaviors: what happens on partial failure, duplicate detection, whether notes are validated, or what gets returned. For a batch mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant transparency gap.

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

    Conciseness4/5

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

    The description is compact with three focused param sections and a clear purpose statement up front. No wasted sentences, though the docstring format adds some formatting noise.

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

    Completeness3/5

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

    For a 3-param batch operation, the description covers the parameters and usage intent well, but with no output schema and no annotations, it should disclose what the batch operation returns (e.g., note IDs, error report) and how failures are handled. This is a moderate gap for a batch mutation tool.

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

    Parameters4/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and does so well. It explains that each note dictionary should contain 'Front' and 'Back' keys and that tags apply to 'every note in the batch' — meaning beyond the bare schema definition of notes as opaque objects.

    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 clearly states verb+resource: adds a BATCH of multiple Anki notes. It distinguishes from the sibling by emphasizing 'single efficient operation' and 'more than one card at once', which differentiates it from add_anki_note.

    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?

    The description says 'Use this for adding more than one card at once', which gives clear usage context and implicitly contrasts with the single-note sibling tool. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention any alternative for adding a single card.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

anki-flashcard-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

anki-flashcard-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/ctjmaxwell/anki-flashcard-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server