Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
epsilongraph

epsilongraph

by silverenternal
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

vault_gaps

Surface known knowledge gaps and unresolved questions in an Obsidian vault by extracting its todo and question callouts, so you can check them before proposing a new direction.

Instructions

What the vault itself admits it does not know, gathered from the notes' own [!todo] and [!question] callouts. Read this BEFORE proposing a new direction: the corpus may already record the gap, or may already have closed it.

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": "vault_gaps"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
queryNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the data source (the notes' own callouts) and implicitly frames this as a read operation, but says nothing about pagination, limit behavior, ordering, or what the results look like.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the resource definition and followed by the actionable directive. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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?

Purpose and timing are well covered, but with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the definition leaves the calling mechanics (what `query`/`limit` do, what comes back) unexplained for an agent trying to invoke it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description explains neither `limit` nor `query`. An agent cannot tell whether `query` filters the gaps, searches the notes, or something else, and there is no hint about default or bounds for `limit`.

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 states a specific and distinctive resource: gaps the vault admits it doesn't know, sourced from [!todo] and [!question] callouts. This clearly separates it from generic siblings like vault_search or vault_get. It lacks a crisp verb, but the scope and data source are unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It gives an explicit when-to-use condition: 'Read this BEFORE proposing a new direction', plus the rationale that the corpus may already record or have closed the gap. No named alternatives or when-not guidance, so it stops short of a 5.

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