Validate 1–50 Basic or Cloze notes without writing, returning an expiring preview_id so users can review the batch before creating it in Anki.
Validate 1–50 plain-text Basic/Cloze notes without writing. Return an expiring preview_id. Show the preview to the user before creation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| notes | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, it discloses genuinely new behavior: the 1-50 note cap (not encoded anywhere in the schema), plain-text/Basic/Cloze restrictions, and that the returned preview_id expires. It does not say how long the id is valid or what error an expired id yields, which keeps it below a 5.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and read-only guarantee, with the count limit and the follow-up instruction in sequence. Nothing is redundant or padded.
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 covers the return value and annotations cover the safety profile, so the description only needs the constraints it supplies. It is nearly complete, but an agent still can't tell from this whether the deck must pre-exist or how fields should be named for a given note type.
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% and the single 'notes' parameter is a structured NoteSpec with deck, note_type, fields and tags — all undocumented. The description does add meaning by constraining note_type to Basic/Cloze and fields to plain text, but says nothing about deck validity, tags, or how field keys map to note types.
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?
It states a specific verb and resource ('Validate ... notes without writing') plus concrete scope limits (1-50, plain-text, Basic/Cloze). This cleanly separates it from the sibling create_notes, which performs the actual write, without needing the schema open.
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?
'Show the preview to the user before creation' gives a clear triggering condition for when to call this tool. It stops short of naming create_notes as the follow-up alternative or stating any when-not conditions, but the sequencing guidance is unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.