enquire-mcp

Vault dashboard (one-shot orientation)

obsidian_stats

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a vault-wide summary with total notes, bytes, average length, orphan notes, broken wikilinks, recent modifications, and top tags for structural context.

Instructions

Vault-wide summary: total notes, total bytes, average note length, recently-modified count (last 7 days), orphan notes (no inbound + no outbound), broken wikilink count, total tag count, and top-N tags by frequency. Cheap (one pass over the cached parse). Useful as the first call in a session so the LLM has structural context before issuing targeted reads.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "obsidian_stats"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`top_tags`	No	How many top tags to return (default 10)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv3.10.1Jun 22, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, covering safety. The description adds valuable context about performance (one pass over cached parse), which goes beyond what annotations provide.

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 concise sentences: the first lists all returned metrics, the second provides usage guidance and cost. No wasted words, well front-loaded.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a simple tool with one optional parameter, no output schema, but strong annotations, the description provides everything needed: what is returned, when to use it, and its performance characteristics.

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 coverage is 100% with a clear description for the single parameter. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly specifies that the tool returns a vault-wide summary including specific metrics (total notes, total bytes, etc.), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being a one-shot orientation call.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly states it is useful as the first call in a session to provide structural context, and notes that it is cheap (one pass over cached parse), guiding the agent to use it before targeted reads.

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