Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Obsidian Second Brain MCP

Obsidian Second Brain MCP

by theon199
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Vault Overview

vault_overview
Read-onlyIdempotent

Summarize vault size, structure, tags, properties, link health, and tasks to evaluate overall organization and identify issues.

Instructions

Summarize vault size, structure, tags, properties, link health, and tasks.

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_overview"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sampleLimitNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
okYes
dataNo
evidenceNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the list of aspects covered (size, structure, tags, properties, etc.), providing useful scope information but no additional behavioral details like output format or performance implications.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the action verb, no filler. It earns its place by summarizing the tool's scope efficiently.

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?

For a read-only summary tool with a 1-parameter input and output schema provided, the description covers the core purpose. However, it omits explanation of sampleLimit and any contextual guidance on when a vault overview is appropriate. The output schema likely covers return values, so that gap is mitigated.

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?

The input schema is self-documenting for constraints (integer, 1-200, default 30) but includes no description for sampleLimit. The tool description does not mention this parameter either, so the agent must infer its meaning from the parameter name. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate.

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 uses the specific verb 'Summarize' and clearly identifies the resource (vault) and scope (size, structure, tags, properties, link health, tasks). It does not explicitly compare with sibling tools, but the vault-level scope inherently differentiates it from note-centric siblings.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_notes or read_note. The description merely states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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