Node.js + TypeScriptで構築されたMCPローカルサーバーで、ObsidianボルトをVS Code + GitHub Copilotに公開します。
ボルト内のMarkdownノートの読み書きに焦点を当て、stdioを介したローカルでの使用を想定しています。
npm install -g obsidian-mcp-local
Related MCP server: Obsidian MCP Server
search_notes(query)
ノートのパス、フロントマター、コンテンツ内のテキストを検索します
小さな抜粋を含むランク付けされた結果を返します
get_note(path)
ボルトからノートを開きます
path、frontmatter、contentを返します
create_note(path, content, overwrite?)
新しいノートを作成します
オプションで既存のノートを上書きします
append_to_note(path, content)
既存のノートの末尾にコンテンツを追加します
find_by_tag(tag)
タグでノートを検索します
フロントマターのtagsおよびコンテンツ内のインラインタグをサポートします
設定されたボルト内のファイルのみにアクセスします
以下のディレクトリを無視します:
.obsidian
.git
node_modules
.mdファイルのみを扱います
ベースディレクトリ外へのアクセスを防ぐためにパスを正規化します
obsidian-mcp-local/
package.json
tsconfig.json
README.md
.vscode/
mcp.example.json
src/
index.tsNode.js 20+
npm
GitHub Copilotを搭載したVS Code
ローカルのObsidianボルト
プロジェクトディレクトリにて:
npm install
npm run build開発用:
npm run devコンパイル済みバージョンの実行:
npm startnpm install
npm run buildCopilotを使用するワークスペースの.vscode/mcp.jsonに、.vscode/mcp.example.jsonの内容をコピーします。
例: ローカルで使用する場合:
{
"servers": {
"obsidian-local-vault": {
"type": "stdio",
"command": "node",
"args": ["C:/caminho/para/obsidian-mcp-local/dist/index.js"],
"env": {
"OBSIDIAN_VAULT_PATH": "D:/Obsidian/Vault"
}
}
}
}npx経由で使用する場合（ローカルビルド不要）:
{
"servers": {
"obsidian-local-vault": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "obsidian-mcp-local"],
"env": {
"OBSIDIAN_VAULT_PATH": "D:/Obsidian/Vault"
}
}
}
}以下を置き換えてください:
C:/caminho/para/obsidian-mcp-local/dist/index.js
D:/Obsidian/Vault
これらを実際の環境のパスに書き換えてください。
その後、CopilotがMCPサーバーを検出するはずです。
「ボルトから.NETに関するノートを探して」
「ノート knowledge/backend/dotnet.md を開いて」
「議論した内容の要約を inbox/ideias-mcp.md に作成して」
「ノート daily/2026-04-06.md の末尾に - testar MCP local を追加して」
「タグ #arquitetura が付いたノートを見つけて」
append_under_heading
[[wikilinks]] の解析
get_backlinks(note)
高速検索のためのSQLiteインデックス
書き込み用フォルダのホワイトリスト (inbox/, daily/, scratch/)
特定フォルダへの書き込み制限設定
このプロジェクトはObsidianが起動している必要はありません。
ボルトのファイルに対して直接操作を行います。
ObsidianとVS Codeの両方で書き込みを有効にする場合、競合制御はユーザーの責任となります。
現在のプロジェクトは、ボルトがローカルのMarkdownフォルダであることを前提としています。
実装は以下にあります:
src/index.ts
個人利用 / カスタマイズ用のベースとして。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| content | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| content | Yes | ||
| overwrite | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tag | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2append_to_notecreate_notefind_by_tagget_notesearch_notesScored across 5 tools
Each tool name clearly indicates a distinct operation: create, get, append, search, and find by tag. No significant overlap is apparent.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., create_note, search_notes), making the set predictable.
Five tools cover essential note operations (create, retrieve, modify, search, tag) without unnecessary bloat or deficiency for the domain.
The set includes create, read, update (via append), and search operations but lacks a delete operation, which is a notable gap for a complete CRUD surface.
Search and reason over your Obsidian-style Markdown vault, right from ChatGPT.
Connect AI assistants to your GitHub-hosted Obsidian vault to seamlessly access, search, and analy…
Search your Obsidian vault to quickly find notes by title or keyword, summarize related content, a…
Personal context for every AI: search, read, and write back to your private Markdown library.
