Search notes in an Anki collection using Anki search syntax; returns note IDs, models, decks, tags, and field excerpts.
Search notes with Anki search syntax (e.g. 'deck:Economics tag:Economics::Macro inflation'). Returns note ids, model, decks, tags and field excerpts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish the safe read-only, closed-world profile, and the description adds the return shape (note ids, model, decks, tags, field excerpts), which matters since there is no output schema. It does not disclose pagination or the default result cap, so it stops short of full transparency.
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?
Two sentences, no filler: the core mechanism (syntax search) is front-loaded with an example, followed by the return contents. Every clause earns its place.
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 read-only search tool with no output schema, the description covers both the query language and the returned fields, which is most of what an agent needs. The missing piece is result-limiting behavior (limit/default 20), which an agent calling it repeatedly would want to know.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does well for 'query' by specifying the Anki search syntax with a worked example, but says nothing about 'limit' or the default of 20, leaving one of two parameters undocumented in both schema and prose.
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?
States a specific verb (search) and resource (notes) and backs it with a concrete Anki-syntax example, so an agent immediately understands this is a syntax-driven note query. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_notes, but the example query format makes the distinction inferable.
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 example query implies usage context, but there is no explicit 'use this when…' guidance and no mention of the sibling get_notes as the alternative for id-based retrieval. The agent must infer the search-vs-fetch split on its own.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.