Simple Memory MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

export_to_obsidian

Export the knowledge graph to an Obsidian vault in markdown, dataview, or canvas formats. Specify the vault path and let auto-index create organized notes.

Instructions

Export the knowledge graph to Obsidian vault in various formats

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": {
      "vaultPath": "<vaultPath>"
    },
    "name": "export_to_obsidian"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`format`	No	The export format - markdown (individual files), dataview (business intelligence), canvas (visual network), or all formats	markdown
`autoIndex`	No	Whether to automatically create index files
`vaultPath`	Yes	The path to the Obsidian vault directory

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.0Aug 9, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does not mention potential side effects like overwriting files, directory creation, permissions, or whether the operation is reversible. This is a significant gap for a write/export operation.

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?

The description is a single sentence of 11 words, front-loaded with the verb and destination, with no redundant phrases. Every word earns its place.

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

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too thin. It lacks information about what happens on export, return values, prerequisites, and format implications. The complete schema coverage mitigates param gaps, but overall behavior is unexplained.

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?

The schema already describes all three parameters at 100% coverage, so the description adds little meaning beyond naming 'various formats'. It does not elaborate on format-specific behavior or index creation beyond what the schema states, keeping this at 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 identifies the action ('Export'), the resource ('knowledge graph'), and destination ('Obsidian vault'), and distinguishes from sibling tools that manage entities/relations rather than exporting. It is specific and unambiguous.

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, nor any exclusions or best practices. The usage context is only implied by the tool's name and purpose, making it merely the minimum viable guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server