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

obsidian-codex-mcp

by aka-kika
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

search_notes

Find notes in your Obsidian vault by searching content, title, or tags. Narrow results to a specific folder for precise retrieval.

Instructions

Search notes by content, title, or tags.

Args: query: Search query string folder: Optional folder to search within

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_notes"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryYes
folderNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description must fully convey behavior. It only mentions search dimensions without details on pagination, wildcards, or whether it's destructive, which is insufficient.

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 short and front-loaded with the main purpose, but the Args section could be integrated more naturally. It remains efficient.

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 low parameter count and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate for a search tool. However, it omits any mention of return format or behavior, which could mislead.

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 description coverage, the description adds meaning by labeling 'query' as 'Search query string' and 'folder' as 'Optional folder to search within', improving over bare 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 'search' and resource 'notes', and specifies search dimensions (content, title, tags). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_notes and get_note.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage for text-based note searching but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus others, nor does it provide exclusion criteria or alternatives.

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