Skip to main content
Glama

ainote

by io.github.seunghan91

vault_create

Create a new private vault as a GitHub repository under the user's account. Requires the user to have completed the GitHub App install flow first.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesVault display name. The GitHub repo name (slug) is derived from it unless `slug` is given.
slugNoOptional explicit repo slug (ASCII lowercase-hyphen). Required when `name` has no ASCII letters or digits — e.g. a Korean-only name — because GitHub repo names are ASCII-only.
descriptionNoOptional GitHub repo description.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / $schema
      Added value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
  2. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / name / description
      Previous value: -"Vault name. Slug is derived from this value and used as the GitHub repo name."New value: +"Vault display name. The GitHub repo name (slug) is derived from it unless `slug` is given."
    • addedInput schema / properties / slug
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional explicit repo slug (ASCII lowercase-hyphen). Required when `name` has no ASCII letters or digits — e.g. a Korean-only name — because GitHub repo names are ASCII-only.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly=false and openWorldHint=true. The description adds concrete behavioral context: the creation happens as a GitHub repository under the user's account, and it requires the GitHub App install flow. This goes beyond the annotations by specifying the external side effect and auth prerequisite.

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, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no filler. Every phrase (private, GitHub repository, under user's account, install flow) adds necessary context.

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 no output schema, the description does not describe return values, but for a create tool this is a minor gap. It covers what is created, where, and the key prerequisite. Sibling context and annotations fill remaining gaps, making it fairly complete.

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%, so the schema fully documents all three parameters (name, slug, description). The description adds no additional parameter information, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 verb 'Create' plus the resource 'new private vault as a GitHub repository under the user's account.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like vault_read and vault_sync by specifying creation of a private GitHub repo.

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 provides a clear prerequisite ('Requires the user to have completed the GitHub App install flow first'), which is important usage context. It does not explicitly list alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the create semantics versus siblings (read/sync) are evident.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All ainote toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools clearly target distinct resources (tasks, docs, graph, sync, env_sync, handoffs, judgments, projects, vault). A few pairs could confuse, like sync_push vs vault_sync (which has a push action) and env_sync_write vs env_sync_txn_push, but descriptions mostly clarify boundaries.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are predominantly snake_case with a noun_verb pattern (e.g., sync_push, task_write), but there are notable inconsistencies: plural/singular mismatches (dev_docs_read vs dev_doc_write, tasks_read vs task_write), verb-first names (list_papers, get_setup_guide, judgment_submit), and a dotted sub-namespace (env_sync.secret_pull) mixed with flat names (env_sync_txn_push).

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is a large surface for a personal note/sync server. While it spans many domains (auth, tasks, docs, sync, env_sync, graph, etc.), the sheer number feels heavy and likely overwhelms agents with too many choices, especially when several tools are consolidated sub-action surfaces.

Completeness3/5

Most domains have reasonable CRUD coverage (tasks, dev docs, graph, sync, env_sync, vault). However, noticeable gaps exist: memory has no write tool (only read), papers only support listing (no create/update/delete), assumptions have write but no dedicated read or delete, and judgment is effectively submit-and-list only.

Resources