Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Obsidian MCP Wrapper

Obsidian MCP Wrapper

by UwUGreed
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

append_human_note

Add a human-authored note to an Obsidian file with optional heading, evidence, and human-directed flag. Provides auditable context for knowledge management.

Instructions

append_human_note

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": {
      "path": "<path>",
      "note_text": "<note_text>",
      "is_human_directed": "<is_human_directed>",
      "evidence": "<evidence>"
    },
    "name": "append_human_note"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYes
headingNo
evidenceYes
note_textYes
is_human_directedYes

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 does not disclose that this is a mutation/write operation, any side effects, or required permissions. The name implies appending, but that is not stated behavior.

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 a single placeholder token, which is under-specification rather than conciseness. It does not communicate any useful information, so it does not 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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description carries the full burden but offers nothing. An agent would be completely lost on how to invoke this tool correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the tool description provides no parameter semantics. While parameter names like 'path' and 'note_text' give hints, others like 'evidence' and 'is_human_directed' remain unexplained.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like find_note or read_section. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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