Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
obsidian-mcp

obsidian-mcp

by ZethicTech
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

remove_property

DestructiveIdempotent

Delete a specified frontmatter property from an Obsidian note using the property name.

Instructions

Remove a frontmatter property from 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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "remove_property"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fileNoNote name (wikilink-style resolution)
pathNoExact path from vault root
nameYesProperty name to remove

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.7

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations indicate destructive and idempotent behavior, but the description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., what happens if the note or property doesn't exist, or if the property is not frontmatter). The description relies entirely on annotations and schema.

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 focused sentence with no extraneous words. It is perfectly concise and front-loaded with the key action and resource.

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?

Given the tool simplicity and good schema/annotation coverage, the description is adequate but lacks some context like return value or error handling. It does not explain the outcome of removing a non-existent property or the need for frontmatter.

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 parameter descriptions already provided. The tool description adds no further meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance understanding.

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 action ('Remove') and the resource ('frontmatter property from a note'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from siblings like set_property and read_property.

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 (e.g., setting a property to empty). There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or context about note existence or property presence.

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