Count tag usage across notes, counting each tag once per note, with optional folder filter and result limit.
Return vault tag usage statistics.
Each tag is counted once per note.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | maximum returned tags | |
| folder | No | optional folder filter |
| 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 indicates a read-only 'return' operation and the counting rule, but with no annotations it does not disclose side effects, permissions, rate limits, or other behavioral constraints beyond that.
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 very concise and front-loaded, using two short sentences to state the purpose and the counting rule with no filler or redundancy.
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?
Given the simple input schema and no output schema, the description provides enough context to understand the core behavior, but it does not specify the exact output shape (e.g., list of tag/count pairs or sorted order).
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 with meaningful semantics: 'limit' is the maximum returned tags and 'folder' is an optional folder filter. These add intent to the schema types and defaults, though edge cases like folder exclusion are not discussed.
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 explicitly states the tool returns vault tag usage statistics and clarifies that each tag is counted once per note, which is a specific and concrete purpose. It is clearly distinct from note search or link statistics siblings.
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 prefer this tool over related alternatives such as search_by_tags, link_stats, or vault_stats. The description defines what it does but does not state when it should or should not be used.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.