Fetch a random note from your vault, with optional folder and extension filters, to discover content unpredictably.
Return a random vault note.
Uses SQLite's random ordering over the filtered catalog.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| folder | No | optional folder filter | |
| extension | No | optional extension filter, such as .md or .pdf |
| 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?
The description discloses that random selection is performed via SQLite's random ordering over the filtered catalog, which gives insight into the selection mechanism. However, with no annotations, it does not clarify potential edge cases such as empty results or whether this operation is strictly read-only.
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 exceptionally concise, consisting of two short sentences. The main purpose is front-loaded and the implementation detail is placed second, making it easy to scan.
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?
For a simple tool with an output schema and fully described parameters, the description provides sufficient context for basic invocation. It lacks usage timing and edge-case behavior, but these are covered under other dimensions and the tool's simplicity reduces the need for more.
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 input schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters ('optional folder filter' and 'optional extension filter, such as .md or .pdf'). The description does not add further semantic detail beyond what the schema supplies.
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 the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Return a random vault note.' This distinguishes it from search and retrieval tools by emphasizing randomness.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is useful for discovery, sampling, or when a deterministic search is not needed, nor does it exclude any sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.