Skip to main content
Glama

ainote

by io.github.seunghan91

vault_read

Read-onlyIdempotent

Read vault metadata. action: list | clone | status (consolidated surface — same handlers as the legacy tools) Required per action — clone: name.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNo[clone] Vault name or slug.
actionYeswhich operation to run
target_pathNo[clone] Preferred local clone path for the returned instructions.
include_commit_shaNo[list] Include each vault's latest_commit_sha (default false). Costs one GitHub API round-trip per vault, so only ask for it when you actually need the remote HEAD.

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. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / include_commit_sha
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "[list] Include each vault's latest_commit_sha (default false). Costs one GitHub API round-trip per vault, so only ask for it when you actually need the remote HEAD.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  3. Added

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description does not need to restate safety. The description adds the 'consolidated surface' compatibility note but does not disclose additional behavioral consequences, such as what happens if an action fails or whether any state changes occur (which aligns with the read-only annotation).

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 compact and information-dense, with two sentences covering the purpose, action list, consolidated nature, and a key conditional requirement. No redundant phrasing or filler.

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 4-parameter tool with no output schema, the description plus schema provides sufficient operational detail: actions, conditional requirements, and parameter meanings. It lacks explicit return-value descriptions, but the read-only annotation and action semantics make the tool's behavior predictable.

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 coverage is 100%, providing baseline parameter descriptions. The description adds value by specifying a conditional requirement—'Required per action — clone: name'—which is not captured in the schema's simple required list. This helps agents understand action-specific parameter usage.

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 vault metadata and enumerates the three available actions (list, clone, status). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like vault_create and vault_sync by focusing on read operations, and the phrase 'consolidated surface' indicates it is the unified read interface.

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 contexts by listing actions and noting that clone requires a name, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'same handlers as the legacy tools' which hints at replacing them, but no direct when/when-not guidance is provided.

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