Counts every active vault entry and its relation totals, optionally as of a past date, without returning note titles or bodies. Use it to gauge collection size and relationship counts.
Return complete aggregate counts for every active vault entry. This read-only operation has no entry-result limit and returns no titles or bodies. relation_count is what holds now, or at as_of.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| as_of | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses read-only semantics, that there is no entry-result limit, and that no titles or bodies are returned. It omits auth requirements and any cost/performance note, so a 3 is appropriate rather than higher.
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?
Three tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. Each sentence adds a distinct fact (scope, read-only/limits/return shape, as_of semantics). Minor cost: the as_of sentence is abrupt and assumes the reader knows what relation_count is.
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?
With no output schema, the description correctly takes on return-value disclosure: it states the tool yields aggregate counts, no titles or bodies, and mentions relation_count. Combined with the simple one-param surface, an agent has enough to call it, though the as_of format remains unspecified.
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?
One parameter (as_of) with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning — 'relation_count is what holds now, or at as_of' — clarifying the temporal effect of the parameter. However, it never states the accepted date/time format or that omitting it means 'now', leaving a real gap.
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?
States a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Return complete aggregate counts for every active vault entry.' An agent can clearly distinguish this from content-returning siblings like get_entry, retrieve, or search. It does not explicitly name a sibling, so it stops short of 5.
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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternatives. Usage is only implied by the scope ('aggregate counts', 'returns no titles or bodies'), which hints you should pick this when you need counts rather than content. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.