Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
background-vault-analysis

background-vault-analysis

by MikeyBeez
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

generate_report

Create comprehensive analysis reports for Obsidian vaults in markdown, JSON, or CSV formats, with customizable sections and timeframes.

Instructions

Create comprehensive analysis report in specified format

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "vaultPath": "<vaultPath>"
    },
    "name": "generate_report"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
formatNoReport formatmarkdown
sectionsNoReport sections to include
timeframeNoAnalysis timeframe
vaultPathYesPath to the vault

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining side effects, permissions, and scope. It only says 'create', implying output generation, but does not disclose whether it writes files, modifies vault data, or returns a report directly.

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, efficient sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and output type, though it may sacrifice substance for brevity.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description lacks vital context about what the report contains, how the analysis is performed, and what the function returns. It is too minimal for a tool with four parameters.

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 schema provides descriptions for all parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already states.

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 uses a clear verb ('create') and resource ('analysis report'), and mentions format flexibility. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_insights, but the name and action make its role as a report generator evident.

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 scan_vault, get_insights, or track_changes. It does not state prerequisites, use cases, or conditions that indicate this tool is the right choice.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools