anki-mcp

by yama662607

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

TypeScript

Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.5.2
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action. The batch variants (add_notes_batch, delete_notes_batch) are clearly differentiated from their singular counterparts by name and description, and get_note_type_schema vs list_note_types are distinct in detail level.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (e.g., list_decks, ensure_deck, add_note, delete_notes_batch). The use of 'batch' suffix is uniform and predictable.
Tool Count4/5
At 16 tools, the count is slightly above the typical 3-15 range, but each tool covers a meaningful aspect of Anki management (decks, note types, notes, media, runtime). The batch operations and preview tool add breadth without feeling redundant.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface provides robust CRUD for notes (add/get/update/delete/batch/suspend) and reasonable coverage for note types (list/get/upsert). Missing operations like deck deletion or note type deletion are minor gaps that can be worked around, but do not severely hinder typical Anki workflows.
Average 3.6/5 across 16 of 16 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 2 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on March 13, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
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

Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description 'stable per-item outcomes' adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true), suggesting that each item's deletion result is independent and possibly partial failure is handled gracefully. This complements the destructive hint without contradicting it.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose. It avoids verbose language and gets straight to the point. However, it may be too terse given the complexity of the operation, but that is more a completeness issue than a structure issue.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a batch delete operation with nested item structures, the description is notably sparse. It does not address error handling, permission requirements, maximum batch size (schema allows up to 100), or return values. Given there is no output schema, the description should provide more context about what the agent can expect, but it doesn't.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides no explanation of the parameters 'profileId' and 'items'. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate, but it doesn't mention what these parameters represent or how they relate to the deletion. The agent is left to infer from the schema structure alone, which is insufficient.
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 ('Delete') and the resource ('multiple notes'), with the additional qualifier 'stable per-item outcomes' hinting at batch-specific behavior. This distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'delete_note' by indicating batch operation, though it doesn't explicitly name the alternative.
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 intent to delete multiple notes is implied by the tool name and description, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this instead of 'delete_note' or other siblings. The phrase 'stable per-item outcomes' gives a hint about partial failures, but no clear context or exclusions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only state readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description's mention of 'review-pending' adds a useful behavioral detail. However, it does not disclose other behaviors like validation requirements, handling of missing decks/note types, or return values.
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?
A single sentence that is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 7 parameters, no output schema, and nested objects, the description is too minimal. It fails to explain the required profileId, the meaning of 'review-pending', or any side effects like suspension. The lack of output schema also leaves return behavior unclear.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 explains deckName, modelName, fields, and tags but omits required profileId and optional clientRequestId and suspendNewCards. This leaves several parameters undocumented.
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 action ('Create') and the resource ('a review-pending note') with explicit inputs ('deck, note type, fields, and tags'). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'add_notes_batch' and 'update_note'.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives. The phrase 'directly from deck, note type, fields, and tags' implies single-note creation but does not mention the batch variant or exclusions. No comparison to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotation already declares readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds that the result includes field and template summaries, which is helpful. However, it does not disclose any additional behavior such as pagination, ordering, or potential errors. Given the safety is covered by annotations, the moderate addition of content justifies a 3.
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?
The description is a single, focused sentence that front-loads the core action and expected output. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or irrelevant details.
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?
The tool is simple, and the description covers the basic output. However, the optional profileId parameter is left unexplained, and there is no mention of whether the tool returns all note types or filters by profile. Given the lack of parameter semantics and usage guidance, the description is not fully complete for an agent to use it optimally.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one optional parameter (profileId) with no description, and the tool description does not mention profileId at all. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description fails to compensate by explaining the parameter's meaning or effect on the result. This leaves the agent uncertain about whether the listing is global or profile-scoped.
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 returns available Anki note types with field and template summaries. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like get_note_type_schema (which retrieves a single type's schema) and upsert_note_type (which modifies types).
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. The description does not mention that get_note_type_schema serves a different, more detailed purpose, nor does it explain when listing all types is preferred over searching or fetching a specific type.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-destructive write. The description adds useful behavioral context about the scope: it affects all cards generated from one note, not just a single card. However, it does not discuss side effects like overriding existing suspension settings.
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?
The description is a single, focused sentence that directly states the tool's action without any filler words. It earns its place and is easy to parse.
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 the tool's simplicity, the description covers the core functionality adequately. However, the complete absence of parameter explanations and usage context leaves gaps for an agent trying to invoke it correctly. It is minimally viable but not comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain any parameters. It never mentions profileId, noteId, or suspended, nor does it clarify the meaning of the boolean. The tool description entirely fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.
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 uses a specific verb ('Suspend or unsuspend') and clearly identifies the resource ('all cards generated from one note'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like update_note and delete_note by focusing on the suspend state of all cards for a note.
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 does not mention use cases, prerequisites, or why one would choose this over update_note or other note-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false). The description adds 'stable per-item outcomes,' hinting at per-item result consistency, but does not elaborate on critical behaviors like partial failure handling, atomicity, or side effects. This provides some added context but not enough depth.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence. It contains no redundant words and conveys the core purpose efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a complex batch tool (up to 100 items, mutable) with no output schema, the description is too sparse. It fails to mention return value structure, error handling, or whether the batch is processed atomically. The phrase 'stable per-item outcomes' is a start but leaves significant operational uncertainty.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the description does not explain any parameters. The schema itself has clear property names (profileId, items, fields) but lacks textual descriptions. The description adds no value to parameter understanding, and with only 2 parameters, it should at least mention the purpose of the top-level parameters.
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 function: to create multiple review-pending notes. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_note (single note creation) and delete_notes_batch (deletion), making the purpose unambiguous.
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 implies batch usage via the word 'multiple' and the tool name, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks guidance such as 'use this when you need to create more than one note' or exclusions for edge cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotation readonlyHint=true already signals a safe read operation, and the description is consistent with it. The description adds that the tool returns 'concrete note fields and metadata,' but does not disclose behavior like error handling, pagination, or response structure. Since annotations cover the safety profile, a score of 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no filler or redundancy. It conveys the core purpose efficiently, making it highly readable and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has two parameters, no output schema, and the description gives only a vague idea of return content ('concrete note fields and metadata'). It does not explain profileId, error cases, or the exact structure of the response, leaving the agent with significant uncertainty about how to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explains noteIds via 'by note ID,' but provides no semantics for the profileId parameter. With 0% schema description coverage and no parameter descriptions in the schema, the description carries the full burden but only covers half the parameters, leaving profileId ambiguous.
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 reads note fields and metadata by note ID, using a specific verb ('Read'), resource ('note fields and metadata'), and method ('by note ID'). This distinguishes it from siblings like search_notes (searching) and add_note/update_note (writing).
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 phrase 'by note ID' implies use when note IDs are known, but there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives such as search_notes. No exclusions or conditions (e.g., when profileId should be provided) are mentioned, so usage context is clear but incomplete.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, which covers the read-only nature. The description adds useful context about what components are inspected, but it does not disclose failure modes, the meaning of profileId, or the return structure. This is a moderate addition beyond annotations.
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?
The description is a single, concise sentence that promptly states the verb and object. Every word adds value, with no redundant phrasing.
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?
For a simple inspect tool with no output schema, the description lists the components inspected but omits parameter details, especially the role of profileId. It is adequate for basic use but leaves gaps for an agent to confidently invoke the tool without additional inference.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 only hints that 'modelName' identifies the note type, but 'profileId' is entirely unexplained. The parameter names are partially self-explanatory, but the description does not provide meaningful semantics for either parameter.
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 specifies the action ('Inspect') and the resource ('one note type'), and lists the exact aspects covered (fields, templates, CSS, field bindings). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_note_types (which lists all types) and upsert_note_type (which modifies a type).
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 implies that this tool should be used when you need schema details for a single note type, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or mention any exclusions. The context is clear but lacks direct guidance or alternative references.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by specifying the two types of status checked. However, it does not describe the exact response format, error behavior, or what 'optional extension path' means, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.
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?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word contributes meaning, with no fluff or redundancy.
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?
The tool is simple with one optional parameter and a read-only annotation, but the lack of an output schema means the description should clarify what the report contains. It mentions two checks but leaves the return structure and profileId unexplained, making it only partially complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one optional parameter (profileId) with no description, and the tool description does not mention it at all. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate by explaining what profileId does or why it might be needed.
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 uses a specific verb ('Report') and names the exact resources checked (AnkiConnect reachability and preview extension path). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings by focusing on runtime status rather than deck/note operations.
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 implies usage for checking connectivity and preview extension support, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions. No sibling or alternative tools are referenced.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds a useful behavioral detail about using official hierarchical deck names. No contradiction, but no further disclosure about return format, pagination, or error behavior.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence that states the action and resource without unnecessary words. The format is ideal for quick scanning.
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?
For a simple read-only listing tool, the description conveys the core behavior effectively. However, with no output schema and an undocumented optional profileId, it is not fully complete, though the essential use case is covered.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has no parameter descriptions and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does not mention the optional profileId parameter, leaving the agent to infer its meaning from the name alone. This is insufficient even for a single optional parameter.
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?
Clearly states it lists available Anki decks, with specific verb 'list' and resource 'decks'. Distinguishes from sibling tools like ensure_deck (create/update) and list_note_types (different resource).
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 intended use is implied by the description: when you need to see available decks. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives, though the sibling names provide some differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses 'Dry-run by default' and 'additive-safe constraints,' which are non-obvious behavioral details beyond the annotations. Annotations already indicate non-destructive, but the dry-run behavior is a valuable addition.
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?
One concise sentence that front-loads the dry-run behavior. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a complex upsert tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is too brief. It does not explain what constitutes a note type, the role of fields/templates, or what the tool returns. It would benefit from more context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 7 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain any of them. Parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the tool's behavior for fields, templates, or dryRun is not clarified.
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 creates or updates a note type, using a specific verb and resource. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like add_note (which adds notes) and list_note_types (which reads).
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 implies the tool is for creating/updating note types but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or any prerequisites. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is partially covered. The description adds the key behavioral fact: 'Safe and idempotent', meaning it creates only if missing and does nothing if present. This goes beyond annotations in an informative way, though it does not detail error conditions or return formats.
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?
The description is a single concise sentence: 'Create a deck if missing. Safe and idempotent.' It is front-loaded with the primary action and uses minimal words, leaving no redundant content.
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 the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers the core behavior but lacks details about parameter meanings, return values, or usage context. It is adequate for an agent to invoke the tool, but not thorough enough to fully understand edge cases or when it fits in a workflow.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the parameters deckName or profileId. While the names are self-explanatory, the description provides no additional meaning about their purpose, format, or relationship. The tool's name and context offer some clue, but the description fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.
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 action: 'Create a deck if missing.' This is a specific verb+resource pair that distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_decks and add_note. The word 'ensure' plus the fallback behavior makes the intent unmistakable.
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 implies safe and idempotent usage, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when not to use ensure_deck or comparison to list_decks. The 'Safe and idempotent' phrase gives some context but lacks explicit alternative guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotation readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, and the description adds the 'human review' context. It does not disclose potential side effects like opening a GUI window or requiring a display, which could be relevant for agents running headless. No contradiction with annotations.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the action and purpose.
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?
The tool is simple with two parameters and no output schema, but the description omits parameter semantics and usage guidance. It provides the core purpose but not enough context for an agent to confidently invoke the tool without further inference.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention any parameter by name. The tool's purpose implies noteId is used to identify the note, but profileId is entirely unexplained. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.
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 uses a specific verb ('Open') and resource ('existing note in Anki Browser preview'), clearly distinguishing this tool from siblings like get_notes or search_notes. It states exactly what the tool does and for what purpose (human review).
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 phrase 'for human review' provides clear context for when to use this tool—when a human needs to visually inspect a note. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds the scoping of search filters but does not disclose additional behavior such as pagination, result limits, or return structure. Since annotations cover the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. Every word earns its place and it efficiently communicates the core functionality.
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?
The tool has six parameters and no output schema, yet the description only names the filter types and does not explain the return format, pagination, or optional profileId. For a search tool with optional parameters, more detail would improve completeness, but the basic purpose is adequately conveyed.
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 mentions four of the six parameter types (query, modelNames, deckNames, tags) but omits 'limit' and 'profileId'. It provides a high-level mapping without detailing syntax or constraints, so it partially compensates but leaves gaps.
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 uses a specific verb ('Search') with a clear resource ('existing notes') and explicitly names the filtering dimensions (Anki query, note type, deck, or tag filters). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_notes, which likely retrieves notes by direct lookup, and from mutation tools.
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 gives clear context that this tool is for searching existing notes, which implies when to use it (when you need to find notes by query or filters). It does not provide explicit alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient without being misleading.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses a key behavioral trait—'optimistic mod-timestamp conflict detection'—which goes beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). It alerts the agent to a concurrency mechanism, though it does not specify what happens on conflict or other side effects.
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?
The description is a single, focused sentence that leads with the action and includes the key mechanism. There is no wasted wording; every part contributes to understanding the tool's core purpose.
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 the complexity (5 params, no output schema), the description covers the essence but leaves gaps: no mention of return values, error handling on conflict, or prerequisites like note existence. It does not explain the meaning of 'mod-timestamp' fully, which is central to usage.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It explains that 'fields or tags' are updatable and that 'expectedModTimestamp' relates to conflict detection, but it does not clarify the structure of fields (object) or tags (array) beyond schema types, nor explain profileId/noteId. Partial compensation.
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 function: 'Update note fields or tags' with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add_note and delete_note by focusing on modification, and highlights the unique conflict-detection mechanism.
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 implies usage for updating existing notes, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as add_note (for creating) or delete_note (for removal). No exclusions or explicit context are provided, leaving usage somewhat inferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds the idempotent-when-missing behavior, which is valuable beyond the destructive annotation. It does not explain other effects like cascading deletions, but the idempotency detail is a meaningful addition.
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?
The description is two sentences with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the action and an important behavioral trait.
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?
The tool has two required parameters and no output schema, but the description only partially covers those. It explains the action and idempotency but leaves profileId semantics and any response/return value unaddressed, making it minimally adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It mentions the note ID as the deletion target but completely omits the required profileId parameter, leaving its role unclear.
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 deletes a note directly by note ID. It distinguishes itself from the sibling batch delete tool by focusing on single-note deletion.
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 gives clear context for direct single-note deletion and notes idempotency, implying it is safe to use for retry scenarios. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use the batch alternative or any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate a mutation (readOnlyHint=false) but not destructive. The description adds clarity by specifying the action ('Import') and the return value ('Anki-ready field value'), which is not evident from annotations. However, it does not disclose potential side effects like overwriting files or error behavior, which prevents a higher score.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence provides all the essential information without wordiness. Every clause adds value, and there is no redundant repetition of the tool name or schema details.
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?
The tool has 4 parameters and no output schema, yet the description covers only the broad purpose and return type. It omits details like how mediaKind behaves when omitted, file size limits, or naming behavior, leaving room for agent confusion. This is adequate but not complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 mentions 'audio or image file,' which hints at the mediaKind enum, but it does not explain localPath, profileId, or preferredFilename. The parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description adds little beyond the schema.
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 uses a specific verb ('Import'), names the resource ('local audio or image file into Anki media'), and states the outcome ('return an Anki-ready field value'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling tools, none of which handle media import.
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 makes the tool's context clear: it is for importing media files into Anki for use in note fields. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but since no sibling tool performs media import, the usage context is unambiguous.
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:

[![anki-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/yama662607/anki-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/yama662607/anki-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![anki-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/yama662607/anki-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/yama662607/anki-mcp)

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/yama662607/anki-mcp'

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