Retrieve full fields and tags for up to 100 Anki notes by their note IDs. Use it to inspect exact note content before editing, organizing, or reviewing your collection.
Full fields and tags of up to 100 notes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| note_ids | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety and scope are covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral detail beyond that: the 100-note cap, which tells the agent output may be truncated. It does not cover behavior for invalid/unknown IDs or what happens when more than 100 IDs are supplied.
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?
A single terse sentence with zero padding and the key content (full fields, tags, 100-item limit) up front. The brevity is a virtue structurally, though it borders on under-specification for a tool with no other documentation.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the read-only profile. Still missing for the agent: how notes are identified, ordering, and behavior at the 100-note boundary or with invalid IDs, which matters given 0% parameter documentation.
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% for the single note_ids parameter, so the description must carry the load and it barely does. 'up to 100 notes' hints at a size bound on the input, but nothing explains that the array holds note identifiers, their integer format, or how missing IDs are handled.
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 fragment 'Full fields and tags of up to 100 notes' conveys the resource and what is returned (full fields plus tags), but omits the verb entirely and never states that notes are selected by their IDs. It draws no line against the sibling find_notes, so an agent cannot tell which retrieval tool fits without opening schemas.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance: nothing says whether this is the right choice for fetching notes by ID versus find_notes for querying, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name and sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.