Anki Model Context Protocol (MCP) Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

suspend_cards

Suspend Anki cards from active review using card IDs, note IDs, search queries, or an input file to remove them from review cycles.

Instructions

Suspend cards from active review queues by card IDs, note IDs, search query, or input file.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "suspend_cards"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`query`	No
`card_ids`	No
`note_ids`	No
`input_file`	No
`output_file`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Aug 24, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the action (suspend) but omits any side effects, reversibility, or what happens to the cards after suspension. For a mutating operation with zero 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

A single sentence that front-loads the action and then lists the selection methods. No wasted words; it is appropriately concise for the complexity it conveys.

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?

With no annotations and an output schema present but not described here, the description leaves out key operational details: how selectors interact, whether cards are matched by any or all criteria, and the purpose of the output file. For a tool with 5 optional parameters, this is insufficiently complete.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It names four of the five parameters (query, card_ids, note_ids, input_file) as selection methods, adding meaning beyond the raw schema. However, it does not explain how these combine, take precedence, or what output_file does, leaving the fifth parameter unexplained.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the verb 'Suspend' and the resource 'cards', and specifies the selection methods (by card IDs, note IDs, search query, or input file). It distinguishes from the sibling 'unsuspend_cards' by the opposite action, leaving no ambiguity about its purpose.

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 phrase 'from active review queues' provides some context, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or prerequisites, and the sibling 'unsuspend_cards' is only implied as the inverse rather than explicitly referenced.

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