Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
obsidian-mcp

obsidian-mcp

by ZethicTech
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

append_note

Append text to the end of an Obsidian note. Supports specifying note by name or exact path, with option to add inline without newline.

Instructions

Append content to the end of a 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": {
      "content": "<content>"
    },
    "name": "append_note"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fileNoNote name (wikilink-style resolution)
pathNoExact path from vault root
contentYesContent to append (use \n for newlines)
inlineNoAppend inline (no newline before)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.7

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, matching the append behavior. The description adds that content is appended (not overwritten), which is clear. However, it does not disclose edge cases like note non-existence.

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?

Single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Highly efficient.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple append tool with rich schema and annotations, the description is nearly complete. It lacks explicit statement about note existence handling, but overall adequate.

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?

100% schema description coverage provides clear param meanings. The tool description adds no extra value beyond what the schema already states, earning a baseline score.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the verb 'Append' and the resource 'content to the end of a note,' distinguishing it from siblings like prepend_note (prepend) and create_note (create new note). No ambiguity.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., prepend_note, read_note). Usage context is implied by the name, but no direct guidance is provided.

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