Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
SecondBrain MCP

SecondBrain MCP

by vladilenm
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

get_note_metadata

Retrieve metadata for a note including frontmatter, tags, modification time, hash, wikilinks, backlinks, and line count by specifying the note path, name, or alias.

Instructions

Get one note metadata: frontmatter, tags, mtime, hash, wikilinks, backlinks, line count.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "identifier": "<identifier>"
    },
    "name": "get_note_metadata"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
identifierYesNote path, name, or alias

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It indicates a read operation returning a set of metadata fields but does not mention authentication, rate limits, or potential error conditions. The description is adequate but not detailed beyond the field list.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Single sentence that is front-loaded with purpose and includes a list of returned metadata fields. It is concise, though slightly more structure (e.g., separate listing) could improve readability.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

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 must convey return values. It lists all metadata fields, which is sufficient for this simple tool. It does not describe response format but is otherwise complete given the low complexity.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, already documenting the identifier parameter as 'Note path, name, or alias'. The tool description adds no further meaning to the parameter, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly states 'Get one note metadata' and lists specific fields: frontmatter, tags, mtime, hash, wikilinks, backlinks, line count. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_note which presumably retrieves full content.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_note. The purpose is implied by the name and listed fields, but the description does not provide situational recommendations or exclusions.

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