Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
SecondBrain MCP

SecondBrain MCP

by vladilenm
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

validate_vault_path

Checks if a relative Obsidian vault path is safe for read or write operations, rejecting traversals and excluded folders like 99_Private.

Instructions

Validate whether a relative vault path is safe for read or write. Rejects traversal and excluded folders such as 99_Private.

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": {
      "path": "<path>",
      "operation": "<operation>"
    },
    "name": "validate_vault_path"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYesRelative path inside the Obsidian vault
operationYesOperation to validate

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full burden. It mentions rejection of traversal and excluded folders, which is useful, but fails to disclose return values, error handling, or authorization requirements.

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 concise sentences that front-load the core purpose and key constraints. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy.

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?

For a simple validation tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and constraints. It could specify the return type (boolean or error) for full completeness.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% as both parameters are described. The description adds value by clarifying that the path is relative and that the operation restricts to read/write, plus the safety validation intent, slightly exceeding the schema baseline.

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?

The description clearly states the tool validates a vault path for read/write safety, including rejecting traversal and excluded folders like 99_Private. This specific action distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform direct file operations.

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?

The description implies use before read/write operations but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. It could benefit from clearer guidance on pre-validation 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