Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Obsidian MCP Wrapper

Obsidian MCP Wrapper

by UwUGreed
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

advisory_context

Retrieve relevant advisory context from your Obsidian vault by querying notes at a specific path. Use strategy queries to focus results and control token limits for concise, targeted responses.

Instructions

advisory_context

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "advisory_context"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathNo
queryNo
max_tokensNo
strategy_queryNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

D1.1/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

No annotations are provided and the description discloses no behavioral traits, side effects, or operational context. The description carries the full burden and entirely fails to address it.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely short but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. A single word that repeats the tool name adds no value, so it fails to earn its place.

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

Completeness1/5

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

With four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not hint at the tool's function, return value, or how it differs from a large set of sibling tools.

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

Parameters1/5

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

The schema has four parameters (path, query, max_tokens, strategy_query) with no descriptions, and the tool description does not clarify their purpose or relationships. Schema coverage is 0% and the description provides no compensation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose1/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Tautological: description restates name/title.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines1/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. The empty description gives no context for selection.

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