Skip to main content
Glama
mlorentedev

hive

by mlorentedev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Vault Query

vault_query
Read-onlyIdempotent

Read vault project content by selecting a project slug, file path, or section shortcut; optionally cap lines and prepend metadata for AI context.

Instructions

Read content from a vault project — use instead of direct filesystem access.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathNoRelative path to a specific .md file within the project. Overrides section. (Use `path` for a file, not `identifier` — `identifier` is accepted as an alias.)
projectYesProject slug (directory under 10_projects/), or '_meta' for 00_meta/.
sectionNoShortcut name (context, tasks, roadmap, lessons). Ignored if path is set.context
max_linesNoMaximum lines to return. 0 = unlimited.
identifierNoAlias of `path` (#151). Prefer `path`; for a section shortcut use `section` instead.
include_metadataNoPrepend a structured metadata line from YAML frontmatter.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.23.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / identifier
      Added value: +{
+  "default": "",
+  "description": "Alias of `path` (#151). Prefer `path`; for a section\nshortcut use `section` instead.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / path / description
      Previous value: -"Relative path to a specific .md file within the project. Overrides section."New value: +"Relative path to a specific .md file within the project. Overrides section.\n(Use `path` for a file, not `identifier` — `identifier` is accepted as an alias.)"
  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, which cover the safety profile of this read-only operation. The description adds no behavioral detail beyond 'read content' — nothing about truncation, metadata prepending, or section-versus-path behavior — though those are documented in the schema. There is no contradiction between the description and 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the 'instead of direct filesystem access' clause adds meaningful guidance. It is concise and scannable. However, it is minimal enough that it misses a natural opportunity to point to alternative vault tools.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the rich input schema, output schema, and read-only annotations, an agent can determine how to invoke the tool correctly without extra description. The description alone, though, does not situate vault_query among the twelve sibling tools, particularly vault_ask and vault_search, so selection context is incomplete. The overall package is adequate for invocation but not fully complete for optimal tool choice.

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%, and each parameter already has a detailed description covering path, project, section, max_lines, identifier, and include_metadata. The tool description itself contributes nothing about parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the full semantic burden.

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 identifies a specific action ('Read content') and resource ('vault project'), so the core function is clear. It does not, however, differentiate vault_query from siblings like vault_list, vault_search, or vault_ask, all of which also involve retrieving information from the vault. It avoids tautology and is more informative than the title alone.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The phrase 'use instead of direct filesystem access' gives a useful policy context: when an agent would otherwise read files directly, it should use this tool instead. It does not say when to prefer vault_query over vault_list, vault_search, or vault_ask, nor does it provide any exclusions. This is a clear but incomplete usage signal.

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