Skip to main content
Glama
mlorentedev

hive

by mlorentedev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Vault List

vault_list
Read-onlyIdempotent

List available Obsidian vault projects, or show files inside a specified project directory. Filter results with glob patterns to quickly locate files.

Instructions

List vault projects, or files within a project.

When called without arguments, lists all available projects. When called with a project, lists files in that project directory.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathNoSubdirectory within the project. Empty = project root. (Use `path`, not `subpath` — `subpath` is accepted as an alias.)
patternNoGlob pattern to filter files (e.g. 'adr-*', '*.md').
projectNoProject slug. Empty = list all projects.
subpathNoAlias of `path` (#151). Prefer `path`. Note: there is no `scope` parameter here — `scope` lives on `vault_search`.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.23.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / path / description
      Previous value: -"Subdirectory within the project. Empty = project root."New value: +"Subdirectory within the project. Empty = project root.\n(Use `path`, not `subpath` — `subpath` is accepted as an alias.)"
    • addedInput schema / properties / subpath
      Added value: +{
+  "default": "",
+  "description": "Alias of `path` (#151). Prefer `path`. Note: there is no\n`scope` parameter here — `scope` lives on `vault_search`.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Addedv1.21.0
  3. Removedv1.13.0
  4. First observedv1.11.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the core behavior of listing projects/files but does not disclose additional details like sorting, pagination, or the effect of the pattern parameter (though the schema covers it). It is consistent with annotations and adds some context, but not rich behavioral depth beyond the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences with zero fluff. The core action is front-loaded, followed by two clear usage examples. Every sentence earns its place, making it efficient and easy to scan.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple (list projects/files) and has an output schema, so the return format is defined. Annotations cover side effects, and the description covers the primary invocation modes. It doesn't mention the subpath alias or pattern parameter, but those are fully documented in the schema. Overall, nothing critical is missing for a read-only list tool.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description implicitly explains the project parameter (with/without project) and path usage via the two invocation modes, but it does not add syntax or format details beyond what the schema already provides. It adds marginal value by clarifying the default behavior, but not enough to exceed the baseline.

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 clearly states the tool lists vault projects or files within a project, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes between the two modes (no args vs. with a project). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like vault_search or vault_query, which might also list/filter content, so it's not a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explains how to invoke the tool with or without a project, which is internal usage. It provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as vault_search (for content search) or vault_query (for structured queries). The absence of any reference to siblings leaves the agent to infer the appropriate tool, which is a significant gap given the overlapping toolset.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools