Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
obsidian-mcp

obsidian-mcp

by ZethicTech
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

run_command

Destructive

Execute any Obsidian CLI command to manage vault operations, including sync, plugins, themes, and publish.

Instructions

Run any Obsidian CLI command directly. Use get_help to discover available commands. This is an escape hatch for the ~80 CLI commands not exposed as dedicated tools (sync, plugins, themes, templates, workspaces, publish, dev tools, etc.).

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": {
      "command": "<command>"
    },
    "name": "run_command"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
commandYesCLI command (e.g. 'sync:status', 'plugins', 'vault')
argsNoKey-value parameters (e.g. {"id": "my-plugin", "name": "test"})
flagsNoBoolean flags (e.g. ["verbose", "total"])

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.7

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already set destructiveHint: true, and the description adds that it runs commands directly, which is consistent. No additional behavioral details like output handling or error behavior are provided, so it meets but does not exceed the baseline.

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?

Two concise sentences with no wasted words: the first states the purpose, the second provides context and differentiation from siblings.

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?

Given the tool is an escape hatch with no output schema, the description covers purpose, discovery, and scope. It could mention output format or error handling but is sufficient for a generic CLI runner.

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 descriptions for all parameters, so the description adds little beyond listing example commands. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 it runs any Obsidian CLI command directly, and distinguishes itself from siblings by being an escape hatch for ~80 commands not exposed as dedicated tools.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It suggests using get_help to discover commands and implies use for commands without dedicated tools, but does not explicitly state when not to use or name specific alternatives beyond the sibling list.

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