Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
@lifeng688/anki-mcp

@lifeng688/anki-mcp

by guanweiqiang
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

update_note_fields

Update specific fields of an existing Anki note by providing note ID and field name-value pairs. Optionally preview changes with dry run mode before applying.

Instructions

Update specific fields of an existing note. Supports dryRun.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "noteId": "<noteId>",
      "fields": "<fields>"
    },
    "name": "update_note_fields"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
noteIdYesThe note ID to update.
fieldsYesField name-value pairs to update.
dryRunNoIf true, only preview without writing.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The description mentions support for dryRun, which is a key behavioral trait (preview without writing). However, it does not disclose other behaviors like error handling, idempotency, or constraints on fields beyond what the schema provides. Since no annotations exist, the description carries the full burden and is only partially sufficient.

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?

The description is extremely concise with two sentences, front-loading the core action and a key feature (dryRun). No redundant information.

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 tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It lacks context such as return value, failure behavior, or prerequisites. While the schema covers parameter definitions, the description does not round out understanding for an AI agent.

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 100% with all parameters documented. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond 'Supports dryRun', which is already in the schema. Thus baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the verb 'Update' and resource 'specific fields of an existing note'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like add_note (create) and get_notes_info (read), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential other update tools (none listed).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or conditions. The description only mentions dryRun but does not explain when to use it or exclude other scenarios.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools