Retrieve vault metadata, file counts, and connectivity status to verify an Obsidian vault is reachable and inspect its structure before reading or editing notes.
Returns vault metadata, file counts, and connectivity status
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return contents (metadata, file counts, connectivity status), which implies a read-only probe, but it never states explicitly that it is non-mutating, nor does it cover auth requirements or any failure modes.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero padding. Every clause names a distinct thing the caller gets back, so nothing is wasted.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description is the only source of return information, and 'vault metadata' stays vague about what fields come back. For a trivial no-arg tool it is close to sufficient, but it leaves the response shape underspecified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to convey and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly adds no argument detail because none exists.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description gives a specific verb (returns) and resource (vault) plus the concrete payload: metadata, file counts, connectivity status. It is clearly distinct from file-level siblings like obsidian_list_files and obsidian_get_file_info, but it never names or contrasts with an alternative, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says whether to call this first to verify connectivity, when to prefer it over obsidian_list_files, or what preconditions apply. The agent must infer intent purely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.