Skip to main content
Glama
Obsidian MCP Learning System
by dhruvvenkat

compare_notes_to_project

Checks keyword coverage between Obsidian notes and a local code project to reveal concept gaps and align study notes with implementation.

Instructions

Compare note concepts against a local project repo by checking keyword coverage.

Args: vault_path: Absolute path to the Obsidian vault. notes_folder: Folder inside the vault to scan. project_path: Absolute path to the code project to compare against.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "compare_notes_to_project"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
vault_pathNo/home/dhruv/Documents/compiler engineering
notes_folderNo
project_pathNo/home/dhruv/Documents/Programming/accelerator-sim

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It mentions keyword coverage but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what side effects if any occur, permission requirements, or performance characteristics.

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 front-loaded with the core action and then uses a compact Args block. It is appropriately sized and avoids unnecessary repetition.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, with no annotations and incomplete parameter schema descriptions, the definition still lacks safety/behavioral context and clear usage guidance for an agent to invoke it confidently.

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 gives brief meaning for all three parameters, which is helpful, but does not explain the null/default behavior of notes_folder or what happens when it is omitted.

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 states a specific verb and resources: compare note concepts against a local project repo using keyword coverage. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like extract_concepts or get_learning_gaps.

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?

Usage is implied by the description and argument list, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no comparison to sibling tools. An agent can infer the tool compares notes to a project, but not when to prefer it over alternatives.

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