Retrieve the vault folder hierarchy as a tree, with configurable depth and note counts per folder.
Return the vault folder structure as a hierarchy.
Uses the SQLite catalog without scanning the filesystem.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| max_depth | No | hierarchy depth, bounded by configuration | |
| include_counts | No | include note counts by folder |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of transparency and does disclose a meaningful implementation detail: it uses SQLite catalog and avoids filesystem scans. 'Return' also implies a read-only operation, although it does not explicitly enumerate side effects.
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?
The description is concise and front-loaded, with the primary purpose stated in the first sentence and only one additional clarifying sentence. No unnecessary words or repetition.
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?
The description is sufficient for a simple read-only folder-tree tool, and it states the output shape as a hierarchy. It does not mention edge cases or response details, but no output schema is provided and the operation is straightforward.
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?
Both parameters are described in the schema, so coverage is complete. The descriptions add only marginal detail beyond the parameter names, with 'max_depth' being somewhat vague ('bounded by configuration').
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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: returning the vault folder structure as a hierarchy. It is distinct from sibling tools like search or list operations, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with them.
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?
The statement about using the SQLite catalog without scanning the filesystem gives an implicit performance-related use case. It does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.