vault_graph_hubsReturn the most-linked notes and their connections as a graph to provide a hub overview in the app.
Return the most-linked notes and their connections as a graph (app-only).
Called by the SPA graph view for the hub overview. Not visible to the LLM.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max number of hub notes to include. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v5.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds the important behavior that it is 'app-only' and 'Not visible to the LLM,' which is critical for an agent to know before calling it, as it may not be relevant or accessible for LLM workflows.
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 extremely concise, with three short sentences. The core purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence adds value: what it returns, when it's used, and a crucial caveat about LLM visibility. No waste.
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?
The tool has only one optional parameter and an output schema, so it's relatively simple. The description covers the purpose and usage context, and the output schema likely explains the return format. The main missing piece is an explicit mention of the 'limit' parameter's effect on performance or graph size, but this is minor.
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?
The schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'limit' with a clear description of 'Max number of hub notes to include.' The description does not add further parameter semantics, but since schema coverage is high, baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states it returns the most-linked notes and their connections as a graph, specifying it is app-only and used by the SPA graph view. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_most_linked, which likely returns a simple list, and vault_graph_neighborhood, which focuses on a specific note's connections.
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?
It states it is called by the SPA graph view for the hub overview, giving clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly explain when to use this over siblings like get_most_linked or get_connection_path, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.