Import an entire Obsidian vault into the knowledge graph and vector store, making Markdown notes searchable through hybrid semantic, lexical, and knowledge-graph ranking.
Ingest an entire Obsidian markdown vault into the knowledge graph and vector store.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project | No | default | |
| vault_path | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It names the destination of the data but does not mention whether ingestion is idempotent, overwrites existing data, requires authentication, is long-running, or has side effects on previously uploaded content.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes meaning, clearly communicating the action and destination.
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?
Despite having an output schema, the tool is a bulk ingestion operation with likely side effects, and the description omits critical operational details such as idempotency, failure behavior, and whether the process is incremental or full-reload. The 0% schema coverage and absent annotations leave significant gaps for an agent deciding to invoke the tool.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate for unexplained parameters. It gives context for 'vault_path' by clarifying the vault is Obsidian markdown, but it completely ignores the 'project' parameter, leaving its purpose and effect ambiguous.
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 states a specific verb ('ingest'), a specific resource ('entire Obsidian markdown vault'), and clear targets ('knowledge graph and vector store'). This distinguishes it from siblings like save_memory or extract_and_save_memory, which handle individual items rather than bulk vault ingestion.
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?
Usage context is implied by the phrase 'entire Obsidian markdown vault' — it is for bulk import. However, the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives, provide exclusions, or mention prerequisites such as vault structure or path requirements.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.