MCP Server Learning

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose with no ambiguity. Tools like check_anki_connection, create_flashcards, delete_anki_notes, search_anki_notes, sync_anki, update_anki_note, upload_to_anki, and preview_cards all target specific, non-overlapping operations in the Anki flashcard management workflow.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case naming. Examples include check_anki_connection, create_flashcards, delete_anki_notes, search_anki_notes, sync_anki, update_anki_note, upload_to_anki, and preview_cards, showing perfect consistency throughout.
Tool Count5/5
With 8 tools, this server is well-scoped for managing Anki flashcards. Each tool serves a clear purpose in the workflow, from connection checking and flashcard creation to search, update, deletion, syncing, and previewing, making the count appropriate and efficient.
Completeness5/5
The tool set provides complete CRUD/lifecycle coverage for Anki flashcard management. It includes creation (create_flashcards, upload_to_anki), reading/searching (search_anki_notes, preview_cards), updating (update_anki_note), deletion (delete_anki_notes), and auxiliary operations (check_anki_connection, sync_anki), with no obvious gaps.
Average 3.1/5 across 8 of 8 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions checking connection and getting decks/models, but lacks details on behavioral traits: it doesn't specify what 'check connection' entails (e.g., ping, authentication), what happens on failure, whether it's read-only (implied but not stated), or any rate limits. The description is minimal and misses key operational context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose clearly. The 'Args:' section adds necessary parameter context without redundancy. However, the structure could be more integrated (e.g., merging description and args), and there's minor room for trimming (e.g., 'Optional' is implied by schema). Overall efficient but not perfect.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 1 parameter, no annotations, and an output schema exists, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameter hint, but lacks context on usage guidelines, behavioral details, or integration with siblings. The output schema likely handles return values, so that gap is mitigated. However, for a connection-checking tool, more operational context would be beneficial.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds some meaning by explaining 'anki_api_key' as 'Optional AnkiConnect API key', which clarifies its purpose beyond the schema's title 'Anki Api Key'. However, with 1 parameter and low coverage, it doesn't fully compensate—e.g., it doesn't explain format or when to provide the key. Baseline adjusted upward slightly due to minimal param info.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Check connection to Anki and get available decks/models'. It uses specific verbs ('check', 'get') and identifies the resource (Anki connection, decks/models). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'sync_anki' which might also involve connection checking, so it misses full sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., use this first to verify connectivity before other operations) or contrast with siblings like 'sync_anki' or 'search_anki_notes'. The only implied usage is checking connection, but no explicit when/when-not instructions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action ('Delete') but lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't specify if deletion is permanent, requires confirmation, affects associated cards, or has side effects. This is inadequate for a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by parameter hints in a structured 'Args:' section. It's efficient with minimal waste, though the parameter explanations could be more integrated into the flow.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given a destructive tool with no annotations, 2 parameters at 0% schema coverage, and an output schema (which reduces need to describe returns), the description is partially complete. It covers the basics but misses critical context like deletion permanence, error handling, and integration with sibling tools.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds basic semantics: 'note_ids' is a list of IDs to delete, and 'anki_api_key' is optional for AnkiConnect. However, it doesn't explain ID formats, sourcing, or API key usage, leaving gaps for the 2 parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Delete') and resource ('notes from Anki collection'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'update_anki_note' by specifying deletion rather than modification, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with all alternatives like 'search_anki_notes'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing note IDs from search results) or warn against misuse (e.g., irreversible deletion). The context is implied but not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions searching but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, what happens with invalid queries, if there's pagination beyond the limit, or authentication requirements beyond the optional API key. The description is minimal and lacks operational context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The Args section is structured but could be more integrated; overall, it's efficient with minimal waste, though the formatting as a code block might reduce readability in some contexts.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description partially compensates with query examples and optional key note. An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained. However, for a search tool with siblings, more context on behavior and usage would improve completeness, leaving it at an adequate but gapped level.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds value by providing query examples ('deck:Math', 'tag:chemistry', 'Python programming') and noting the API key is optional, which clarifies usage beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't explain the limit's default or the API key's purpose, leaving some parameter semantics unclear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Search' and resource 'notes in Anki collection', making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this search tool from other sibling tools like 'preview_cards' or 'check_anki_connection', which might also involve note retrieval or inspection.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'preview_cards' (which might show card representations) and 'check_anki_connection' (which might verify connectivity), there's no indication of when search is preferred, nor any prerequisites or exclusions mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Synchronize' implies a two-way data transfer operation, the description doesn't disclose what gets synchronized (decks, media, progress), whether this requires authentication beyond the API key, potential side effects, or what the synchronization process entails. It mentions the API key parameter but provides minimal behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately brief with two sentences: one stating the purpose and one documenting the parameter. It's front-loaded with the core functionality. The 'Args' section is efficiently formatted, though it could be integrated more smoothly into the narrative flow.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given there's an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and only one parameter with 0% schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does and documents the parameter, but doesn't provide enough context about the synchronization behavior, authentication requirements, or relationship to sibling tools. For a synchronization operation, more behavioral context would be helpful.
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?
The description includes an 'Args' section that documents the single parameter (anki_api_key) and indicates it's optional. However, with 0% schema description coverage, the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description compensates somewhat by documenting the parameter, but doesn't explain what the API key is used for, format requirements, or what happens when it's null. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the single parameter is documented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Synchronize') and target resource ('Anki collection with AnkiWeb'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this synchronization tool from sibling tools like 'upload_to_anki' or 'check_anki_connection', which might have overlapping functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling tools (upload_to_anki, check_anki_connection) that might be related to synchronization or connectivity, but the description offers no context about prerequisites, timing, or when this specific synchronization is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is an update operation, implying mutation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or error handling. It mentions an optional API key but doesn't explain authentication needs or defaults.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a parameter list. However, the 'Args:' section is somewhat redundant with the schema and could be more integrated. It's concise but misses opportunities to embed usage context within the flow, making it slightly less efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given complexity (4 parameters, nested objects, mutation operation) and no annotations, the description is moderately complete. It covers parameters well but lacks behavioral context (e.g., side effects, error cases). The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but overall it's adequate with clear gaps for a mutation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides meaningful semantics for all 4 parameters: 'note_id' as the ID to update, 'fields' as field_name:new_value mappings, 'tags' as new tags (optional), and 'anki_api_key' as an optional API key. This adds clarity beyond the bare schema, though it lacks format details (e.g., tag array structure).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Update') and resource ('an existing Anki note'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_flashcards' and 'delete_anki_notes' by focusing on modification rather than creation or deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential similar tools like 'upload_to_anki' in terms of scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing note ID), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'upload_to_anki' or 'search_anki_notes'. The description only lists parameters without contextual usage advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions LaTeX rendering and that tags are 'currently not shown in text format,' which adds some context. However, it lacks critical details: whether this is a read-only operation, if it modifies data, what the output looks like (though an output schema exists), or any performance/rate limits. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and appropriately sized. It starts with a clear purpose statement, followed by a bulleted list of parameters with helpful explanations. Each sentence adds value, and there's no redundancy. However, the 'Args:' section could be integrated more smoothly into the flow.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage and an output schema, the description does a fair job. It explains parameters well but lacks behavioral context (e.g., no annotations, no mention of side effects). The output schema mitigates the need to describe return values, but for a tool with no annotations and multiple parameters, more guidance on usage and behavior would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema: explaining that 'content' is 'Text content to convert to flashcards and preview,' 'card_type' has options 'front-back' or 'cloze,' 'title' is for the 'preview document,' and 'tags' are 'Tags to display on the cards (currently not shown in text format).' This clarifies purpose and constraints, though it could detail format expectations for 'content.'
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Generate text preview of flashcards with LaTeX rendering for Claude Desktop.' It specifies the verb ('Generate'), resource ('text preview of flashcards'), and key capability ('LaTeX rendering'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_flashcards' or 'upload_to_anki' beyond the 'preview' aspect.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when this preview is needed (e.g., before creating actual flashcards), nor does it reference sibling tools like 'create_flashcards' or 'upload_to_anki' for comparison. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions LaTeX rendering and format requirements, but doesn't cover important aspects like whether this creates persistent flashcards, requires Anki connectivity, has rate limits, or what happens with invalid input. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear sections (purpose, args, examples) and efficiently uses space. The examples are helpful but somewhat lengthy. Every sentence earns its place, though it could be slightly more concise in the example section while maintaining clarity.
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?
Given the tool has an output schema (which handles return values), 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description does well by thoroughly documenting parameters and providing practical examples. However, it could better address the tool's relationship to Anki (given sibling tools) and clarify whether this creates persistent flashcards or just formats them.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides excellent parameter semantics beyond the schema. With 0% schema description coverage, it fully compensates by explaining both parameters: 'content' gets detailed format examples (Q:A format, separate lines), and 'card_type' gets clear explanations of the two valid values with specific usage examples. This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Convert text into flashcards with LaTeX math rendering for Claude Desktop'. It specifies the verb ('convert'), resource ('text into flashcards'), and a key feature ('LaTeX math rendering'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'preview_cards' or 'upload_to_anki', which might have overlapping functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides implied usage guidance through examples showing when to use 'front-back' vs 'cloze' card types, but lacks explicit when-to-use statements or comparisons with alternatives like 'preview_cards' or 'upload_to_anki'. The examples help but don't constitute formal guidelines about tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but lacks critical behavioral details. It mentions 'upload' and 'convert', implying mutation, but doesn't disclose permissions needed, rate limits, error handling, or whether it creates new cards vs. updates existing ones. The description adds some context (MathJax conversion) but misses key operational traits for a write tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a front-loaded purpose statement followed by a parameter list. Each sentence earns its place by clarifying tool function and parameters. It could be slightly more concise by integrating parameter details into the main text, but overall it's efficient and readable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 5 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema (which reduces need to describe returns), the description does a fair job. It covers parameter purposes and tool function but lacks behavioral context (e.g., side effects, error cases) and doesn't fully address when to use vs. siblings. For a mutation tool with rich siblings, it's adequate but has gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides clear semantics for all 5 parameters: 'content' (text with LaTeX conversion), 'deck_name' (target deck), 'card_type' (options explained), 'tags' (purpose stated), and 'anki_api_key' (optional API key). This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't detail format constraints (e.g., LaTeX syntax).
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?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('upload', 'convert') and resources ('flashcards', 'Anki'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'create_flashcards' (which likely generates but doesn't upload) and 'preview_cards' (which only shows). The mention of 'MathJax conversion' adds specificity beyond basic upload functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context by specifying 'generated flashcards' and mentioning LaTeX conversion, suggesting it's for post-creation upload. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like 'create_flashcards' (which might handle generation) or 'update_anki_note' (for modifications), nor does it mention prerequisites like AnkiConnect setup.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-server-learning MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/xstraven/mcp-server-learning/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/xstraven/mcp-server-learning)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-server-learning MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/xstraven/mcp-server-learning/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/xstraven/mcp-server-learning)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/xstraven/mcp-server-learning'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server