Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Obsidian MCP Wrapper

Obsidian MCP Wrapper

by UwUGreed
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

remove_note

Removes a specified note from your Obsidian vault using its path and note ID. Provide a reason or heading to document the removal.

Instructions

remove_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_id": "<note_id>"
    },
    "name": "remove_note"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYes
reasonNo
headingNo
note_idYes

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, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It discloses nothing about whether this is a destructive action, whether it requires permissions, whether removal is reversible, or what the impact on linked data might be. The bare name 'remove_note' implies mutation but offers no behavioral context.

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 word, which is technically concise, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It omits all essential information, so the brevity is not earned; every useful sentence is missing.

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?

The tool has four parameters, two required, no output schema, and no annotations. A robust description is essential here, but the description provides zero explanatory content. It is completely inadequate for the tool's complexity.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does not explain any of the four parameters (path, reason, heading, note_id) or their roles. The schema provides only names and types, leaving the agent to infer semantics from parameter names alone, which is insufficient.

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 alternatives. The description gives no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without any basis for tool 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