Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
obsidian-mcp

obsidian-mcp

by ZethicTech
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

daily_append

Append content to today's daily note in Obsidian, with options for inline insertion and opening in a tab, split, or window.

Instructions

Append content to today's daily 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": "daily_append"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
contentYesContent to append (use \n for newlines)
inlineNoAppend inline (no newline before)
paneTypeNoHow to open the note
openNoOpen note after appending

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.7

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations indicate it's a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive. The description adds little beyond stating it appends, which is consistent. However, it does not disclose what happens if the daily note does not exist (e.g., does it create it?) or mention any side effects. Given annotations provide baseline, this is adequate but not rich.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single concise sentence that clearly states the purpose. It could be slightly more informative about behavior, but there is no wasted text.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple append operation, the description covers the basic use case. However, it lacks details about the return value (no output schema) and does not address edge cases like missing daily notes, which impacts completeness given the tool's context.

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 coverage is 100% with all four parameters described. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 with no extra value.

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 'Append content to today's daily note', which specifies the verb (append) and resource (today's daily note). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'append_note' (append to any note) and 'daily_prepend' (prepend to daily note).

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'daily_prepend' or 'append_note'. No usage context or exclusions are mentioned.

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