MCP local em Node.js + TypeScript para expor seu vault do Obsidian ao VS Code + GitHub Copilot.
Ele foi pensado para uso local via stdio, com foco em ler e escrever notas Markdown dentro do seu vault.
npm install -g obsidian-mcp-local
Related MCP server: Obsidian MCP Server
search_notes(query)
busca por texto no path, frontmatter e conteúdo das notas
retorna resultados ranqueados com pequeno excerpt
get_note(path)
abre uma nota do vault
retorna path, frontmatter e content
create_note(path, content, overwrite?)
cria uma nota nova
opcionalmente sobrescreve uma nota existente
append_to_note(path, content)
adiciona conteúdo no final de uma nota existente
find_by_tag(tag)
encontra notas por tag
suporta tags no frontmatter e tags inline no conteúdo
só acessa arquivos dentro do vault configurado
ignora diretórios como:
.obsidian
.git
node_modules
trabalha apenas com arquivos .md
normaliza paths para evitar acesso fora do diretório base
obsidian-mcp-local/
package.json
tsconfig.json
README.md
.vscode/
mcp.example.json
src/
index.tsNode.js 20+
npm
VS Code com GitHub Copilot
um vault do Obsidian local
No diretório do projeto:
npm install
npm run buildPara desenvolvimento:
npm run devPara rodar a versão compilada:
npm startnpm install
npm run buildCopie o conteúdo de .vscode/mcp.example.json para o seu .vscode/mcp.json no workspace onde você vai usar o Copilot.
Exemplo: utilizando localmente:
{
"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"
}
}
}
}utilizando via npx (sem necessidade de build local):
{
"servers": {
"obsidian-local-vault": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "obsidian-mcp-local"],
"env": {
"OBSIDIAN_VAULT_PATH": "D:/Obsidian/Vault"
}
}
}
}Substitua:
C:/caminho/para/obsidian-mcp-local/dist/index.js
D:/Obsidian/Vault
pelos caminhos reais da sua máquina.
Depois disso, o Copilot deve descobrir o servidor MCP.
“Procure no meu vault notas sobre .NET”
“Abra a nota knowledge/backend/dotnet.md”
“Crie uma nota em inbox/ideias-mcp.md com um resumo do que discutimos”
“Adicione no final da nota daily/2026-04-06.md o texto - testar MCP local”
“Encontre notas com a tag #arquitetura”
append_under_heading
parsing de [[wikilinks]]
get_backlinks(note)
índice em SQLite para busca rápida
whitelist de pastas para escrita (inbox/, daily/, scratch/)
bloqueio configurável de escrita em determinadas pastas
Este projeto não depende do Obsidian aberto.
Ele opera diretamente sobre os arquivos do vault.
Se você habilitar escrita tanto no Obsidian quanto no VS Code, o controle de concorrência fica por sua conta.
O projeto hoje assume que o vault é uma pasta Markdown local.
A implementação está em:
src/index.ts
Uso pessoal / base inicial para customização.
| 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.
