Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
obsidian-codex-mcp

obsidian-codex-mcp

by aka-kika
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_base

Read a .base file from an Obsidian vault, returning structured data and raw YAML. Handles imperfect files by providing a parse error field instead of failing.

Instructions

Read a .base file as a parsed structure plus its raw YAML.

Tolerant of imperfect files: if the YAML cannot be parsed, the raw content is returned with a "parse_error" field instead of failing.

Args: path: Vault-relative path to the .base file.

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": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "get_base"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.3.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, but the description discloses return behavior (parsed structure + raw YAML) and error handling for parse failures. It does not mention read-only nature explicitly but it's inferred.

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 extremely concise (three sentences), front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds value.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a simple read operation with one parameter, the description fully covers purpose, behavior, error handling, and parameter meaning. No output schema needed given clarity on return values.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema coverage, the description meaningfully explains the single parameter 'path' as 'Vault-relative path to the .base file', adding context beyond the schema's bare type.

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 tool reads a .base file and returns both a parsed structure and raw YAML, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create, update, or delete.

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?

Usage is implied for reading base files, and error handling for imperfect files is explained, but no explicit exclusions or alternatives to similar read operations are given.

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