list_allowed_directoriesDiscover the vault root and permitted folders so every note path stays inside the allowed area. Use it when the vault path is unknown.
The vault root; every path must be inside it. Start here if the vault path is unknown.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety and idempotency are covered. The description adds a genuinely useful constraint ('every path must be inside it'), but does not describe the return shape or that results are directory paths.
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?
Two short clauses, front-loaded with the core concept and the constraint, then the usage cue. No wasted words.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description bears the burden of conveying what is returned; it hints at 'the vault root' but never states that the tool returns a list of permitted directory paths, which is the agent's main need. Adequate for a zero-param read tool but leaves the return semantics underspecified.
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 tool takes zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline of 4 applies.
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 name and title ('List allowed directories') carry the specific verb+resource, but the description itself is a noun fragment ('The vault root') rather than a stated action. It conveys the concept of the allowed/vault root directory and distinguishes it from path-scoped siblings, but an agent reading only the description gets an implied rather than explicit purpose.
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?
'Start here if the vault path is unknown' gives an explicit trigger condition for when to call this tool first. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions (e.g., versus list_directory), so it is clear context without full routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.