Create an Anki deck by specifying a name. Use :: in the name to build nested decks, such as Biology::Cells.
Create a new Anki deck
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Name for the new deck. A `::` in the name creates a nested deck - `Biology::Cells` is a deck named Cells inside a deck named Biology and Anki creates the parent if it does not exist. There is no way to name a single deck literally `Biology::Cells`. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Create' with no mention of side effects, error handling, or what happens on duplicate deck names. The schema does note nested deck behavior, but that is outside the description itself.
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 sentence with zero redundancy. The purpose is front-loaded and every word 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 simple creation tool with one parameter and no output schema, the definition is mostly complete. However, without annotations, the lack of behavioral disclosure (e.g., idempotency, failure modes) leaves some gaps for an agent expecting robust guidance.
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 100% and the 'name' parameter is thoroughly documented, including nested deck syntax and parent auto-creation. The description adds no additional parameter context, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 description states a specific verb ('Create') and a specific resource ('a new Anki deck'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools that operate on cards, so an agent can identify it without confusion.
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 explicit alternative deck creation tool among siblings, so the intended use is implied. The description could mention when not to use it (e.g., if a deck already exists), but the context makes the primary use obvious.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.