Skip to main content
Glama
nailuoGG

Anki MCP Server

by nailuoGG
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Update Anki Note

anki_update_note
DestructiveIdempotent

Edit fields or replace tags of an existing Anki note; confirm before overwriting. Use for modifications, not inspection or deletion.

Instructions

Use when the user wants to edit the fields or replace the tags of an existing note. Do not use when the user only wants to inspect note content (use anki_get_note_info) or delete it (use anki_delete_note). Safety: confirm with the user before overwriting note content.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tagsNoReplacement tag list. Pass an empty array to clear tags.
fieldsNoNote fields keyed by exact model field names. For Basic: {Front: 'question', Back: 'answer'}.
noteIdYesPositive Anki note ID.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
noteIdYes
successYes
updatedTagsYes
updatedFieldsYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv0.2.0
    • removedInput schema / properties / id
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Positive Anki note ID.",
-  "minimum": 1,
-  "type": "number"
-}
    • addedInput schema / properties / noteId
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Positive Anki note ID.",
+  "minimum": 1,
+  "type": "number"
+}
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "id"
-]New value: +[
+  "noteId"
+]
  2. First observedv0.1.8

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds actionable behavioral guidance beyond them: confirm with the user before overwriting note content. It does not say whether omitted parameters leave existing values untouched, which is the one behavioral question an agent still has.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the when-to-use condition, then exclusions, then the safety caveat. Every sentence carries a distinct decision-relevant fact and none is padding.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

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 destructive/idempotent profile. The description plus schema cover intent routing, tag replacement, field keying, and the confirmation requirement; the only residual gap is partial-update behavior when only one of fields/tags is supplied.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already spells out the important semantics (empty array clears tags, fields keyed by exact model field names, positive note ID). The description's 'replace the tags' merely restates what the schema documents, so baseline 3 is right.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource pair (edit fields / replace tags of an existing note) that an agent can match to a user intent without opening the schema. It also names the sibling tools it is not (anki_get_note_info, anki_delete_note), so it is distinguishable from the other note-level tools.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives explicit positive conditions ('user wants to edit the fields or replace the tags') and explicit negative conditions with the correct alternative for each ('only wants to inspect' -> anki_get_note_info, 'delete it' -> anki_delete_note). Routing is unambiguous.

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