model_fields_on_templatesRetrieves the fields shown on the front and back of each card template for a specified Anki model, helping map model fields to template sides.
Returns, for each card template of the model, which fields appear on the front and back side: {"Card 1": [["Front"], ["Back"]], ...}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| modelName | Yes | Exact model (note type) name, e.g. "Basic" (see model_names). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond them by specifying the exact return shape ({"Card 1": [["Front"], ["Back"]]}), which matters because no output schema exists. It does not say what happens for a model with no templates or an unknown model name.
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?
One front-loaded sentence that states the result and then exemplifies its structure. Every clause earns its place, with no preamble or redundant restatement of the title.
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 single-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description gives the essential missing piece: the return shape. Only edge cases (unknown model, model without templates) are left unaddressed.
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 coverage is 100%: the single modelName parameter is already documented with an example ("Basic") and a pointer to model_names. The description adds no further meaning about the parameter, 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 and resource: it returns, per card template of a model, which fields appear on front and back. That is clear enough to distinguish it from model_field_names (field names of the model) and model_names (model list), though it never names those siblings explicitly.
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?
Usage is only implied by the description and the title: you would call it when you need to know template front/back field composition. There is no statement of when to prefer this over model_field_names, nor any note about preconditions such as the model having templates.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.