Skip to main content
Glama
YuNaga224

Obsidian Memory MCP

by YuNaga224

open_nodes

Open specific nodes in a knowledge graph by name to retrieve stored AI memories as Markdown files for visualization in Obsidian's graph view.

Instructions

Open specific nodes in the knowledge graph by their names

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
namesYesAn array of entity names to retrieve

Implementation Reference

  • The core implementation of the open_nodes tool. Loads the full knowledge graph, filters entities by the provided names, filters relations to only those between the selected entities, and returns the subgraph.
    async openNodes(names: string[]): Promise<KnowledgeGraph> {
      const graph = await this.loadGraph();
      
      // Filter entities
      const filteredEntities = graph.entities.filter(e => names.includes(e.name));
      
      // Get filtered entity names
      const filteredEntityNames = new Set(filteredEntities.map(e => e.name));
      
      // Filter relations
      const filteredRelations = graph.relations.filter(r => 
        filteredEntityNames.has(r.from) && filteredEntityNames.has(r.to)
      );
      
      return {
        entities: filteredEntities,
        relations: filteredRelations
      };
    }
  • The input schema and metadata for the open_nodes tool, defining it accepts an array of entity names.
    {
      name: "open_nodes",
      description: "Open specific nodes in the knowledge graph by their names",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {
          names: {
            type: "array",
            items: { type: "string" },
            description: "An array of entity names to retrieve",
          },
        },
        required: ["names"],
      },
    },
  • index.ts:230-231 (registration)
    The registration and dispatch handler in the MCP tool call switch statement, which invokes the storageManager.openNodes method with the provided arguments and formats the response.
    case "open_nodes":
      return { content: [{ type: "text", text: JSON.stringify(await storageManager.openNodes(args.names as string[]), null, 2) }] };
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action ('open') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, what happens if nodes don't exist (e.g., errors or empty results), or the format of returned data. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and resource. It wastes no words and is appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool, with every part contributing to understanding the tool's purpose.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the complexity (a retrieval tool with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'open' entails (e.g., returns node details, errors on missing nodes), the return format, or behavioral constraints. For a tool interacting with a knowledge graph, more context on outcomes and limitations is needed to be fully helpful.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'names' fully documented in the schema as 'An array of entity names to retrieve'. The description adds minimal value beyond this, only reiterating 'by their names' without providing additional context like name format, case sensitivity, or handling of duplicates. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the action ('open') and target resource ('nodes in the knowledge graph'), with specificity about the mechanism ('by their names'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'read_graph' (general reading) and 'search_nodes' (search-based retrieval), though it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives. The purpose is unambiguous but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., nodes must exist), exclusions (e.g., not for creating or deleting nodes), or direct comparisons to siblings like 'read_graph' or 'search_nodes'. The description implies usage for retrieval by name but offers no contextual boundaries.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/YuNaga224/obsidian-memory-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server