Browse Obsidian vault contents by directory, depth, and markdown filters. Retrieve note names and optional frontmatter to organize or audit your knowledge base.
List notes in the Obsidian vault.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| request | Yes | Request model for list_notes tool. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether there are side effects, or what the return structure looks like (though an output schema exists). It only states the basic function, omitting important behavioral context such as recursion limits or filtering behavior. This is a significant gap, so a 2 is appropriate.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It is concise and directly states the primary action. However, its brevity results in under-specification, which slightly reduces the score; it does not merit a 5 because it omits necessary contextual details.
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?
This is a moderately complex tool with a nested request object and five sub-parameters, plus an output schema. The description only states 'List notes in the Obsidian vault' and fails to mention key contextual aspects such as recursion defaults, the fact that it filters by Markdown files, or the read-only nature. While the output schema may cover return values, usage context is largely absent, making the tool incomplete for an agent to use correctly.
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 schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter (path, max_depth, recursive, glob_pattern, include_frontmatter) having a description. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Per the rubric, the baseline is 3 given high schema coverage, and the description does not enhance it.
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 description clearly states the action (list) and resource (notes in the Obsidian vault). It is specific enough to distinguish from siblings like read_note or write_note, though it does not explicitly call out those alternatives. A clear verb+resource is present, so it earns a 4 for purpose clarity.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus search_notes, search_frontmatter, or get_daily_note. There is no mention of use cases, exclusions, or alternatives. This falls short of the expected guidance for selecting the right tool, earning a 2.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.