Retrieve vault index statistics—note, chunk, entity, fact, and relation counts—to verify memory coverage and diagnose indexing gaps.
Get vault index statistics: count of notes, chunks, entities, facts, and relations.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| facts | Yes | ||
| notes | Yes | ||
| chunks | Yes | ||
| entities | Yes | ||
| relations | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.0Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": {},
+ "properties": {
+ "chunks": {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "entities": {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "facts": {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "notes": {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "relations": {
+ "type": "number"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "notes",
+ "chunks",
+ "entities",
+ "facts",
+ "relations"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, and the description names the categories of statistics returned, but it does not explicitly confirm safety, freshness, caching, permissions, or side-effect behavior.
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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The verb and resource come first, followed by the specific statistics available.
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?
For a zero-parameter status tool with an output schema, the description provides enough context to understand what the tool returns. Return-value formatting is covered by the output schema, so the description need not repeat it.
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 has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify at the parameter level. The baseline for a parameterless tool is therefore 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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Get vault index statistics,' and enumerates the exact counts returned (notes, chunks, entities, facts, relations). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like entity, facts, keyword, and search, which deal with records or searching rather than index-level statistics.
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?
Usage is implied by the tool name and the statistics-oriented description: an agent can infer it is for inspecting index size/contents. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search or facts, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.