Create a new Anki flashcard by specifying deck, note type, fields, and tags for LLM-generated study material.
Create a new flashcard in Anki
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tags | No | Tags to add to the card | |
| fields | Yes | Fields for the card (e.g., Front, Back) | |
| deckName | Yes | Name of the deck to add the card to | |
| modelName | Yes | Name of the note type/model to use | Basic |
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 the full disclosure burden. It does not say whether the tool requires a running Anki instance, how duplicate cards are handled, what the return value is, or whether the write can be reversed.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficiently structured, though its brevity contributes to the behavioral gaps noted elsewhere.
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?
A mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, required deck/model/field inputs, and a nested fields object needs more than one sentence. Nothing explains prerequisites, side effects, or the result of a successful creation.
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%, so deckName, modelName, fields, and tags are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 (create) and resource (flashcard in Anki), making the core action unambiguous. However, it offers no differentiation from siblings like create_deck or update_card, so the agent must infer scope from the name alone.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as update_card, or when to create a deck first. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the name and schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.