obsidian-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

search

Read-onlyIdempotent

Search your Obsidian vault for text matching a query, with options to limit by path, case sensitivity, and output format.

Instructions

Search the vault for text matching a query.

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": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "search"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`query`	Yes	Search query
`path`	No	Limit to path
`limit`	No	Max results
`format`	No	Output format
`case`	No	Case-sensitive search
`total`	No	Show only the total count

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.7Jun 4, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint. Description adds no additional behavioral context beyond 'text matching query', which is minimal. No details on performance, rate limits, or side effects.

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 sentence, front-loaded with key information. No unnecessary words.

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

Completeness2/5

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

No output schema, and description does not explain return format (e.g., list of note titles, snippets). For a search tool with 6 parameters, this is insufficient for an agent to understand expected results.

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%, so schema already documents all parameters. Description does not add extra meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., query format, path semantics). Baseline 3 maintained.

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

Purpose4/5

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

Description clearly states verb 'Search' and resource 'vault' for text matching query. It is specific enough but could define what is searched (e.g., note contents). Siblings like search_with_context are distinguished implicitly, but no explicit differentiation.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives like search_with_context. No exclusions or prerequisites mentioned. The agent must infer usage context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.