Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
obsidian-mcp

obsidian-mcp

by ZethicTech
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

wordcount

Read-onlyIdempotent

Count words and characters in an Obsidian note using a note name or path. Optionally filter to show only word or character count.

Instructions

Count words and/or characters in a note.

Tool call template

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": "wordcount"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fileNoNote name (wikilink-style resolution)
pathNoExact path from vault root
wordsNoShow word count only
charactersNoShow character count only

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 already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that it counts words/characters, but does not detail behavior like whether it returns a formatted result or handles empty notes. This is adequate but minimal.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose without redundancy. It is concise and to the point.

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 simplicity of the tool and no output schema, the description covers the main functionality. However, it could be improved by mentioning the return value format (e.g., returns counts) and handling of multiple parameters.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description does not add any additional semantic meaning beyond what is in the schema.

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 verb 'Count' and the resource 'words and/or characters in a note'. It is specific and distinguishes itself from sibling tools, none of which duplicate this functionality.

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 like read_note or search. There is no mention of when not to use it or any prerequisites.

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