Open or create today's daily note in Obsidian for quick journaling and task capture.
Open/create today's daily note in Obsidian.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "daily_create"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| paneType | No | How to open the note |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.7Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds that it both opens and creates the note, which is useful behavioral context beyond annotations. It does not detail what happens if the note already exists or the return value, but annotations cover safety aspects sufficiently.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded with the core action. Every word serves a purpose, and there is no unnecessary information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema, annotations present), the description is nearly complete. It could mention that the note is opened in Obsidian and possibly the return behavior, but the current text is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for the single optional parameter paneType, which is fully defined in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline expectation but not exceeding it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Open/create' and the resource 'today's daily note', which distinguishes it from siblings like daily_read (read-only) and create_note (generic note creation). It precisely communicates what the tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies that the tool is for daily notes specifically, but it does not explicitly guide when to use it versus alternatives like daily_append or create_note. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, which is a gap given the number of sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.