Skip to main content
Glama
aleksakarac

Obsidian MCP Extended

by aleksakarac

add_dataview_field_tool

Add a Dataview inline field to a note, auto-detecting value types and supporting multiple syntax variants and insertion positions.

Instructions

Add a Dataview inline field to a note (filesystem-native, offline).

Creates a new Dataview field using the specified syntax variant. Automatically detects and preserves value types (number, boolean, date, etc.).

Syntax variants:

  • full-line: field:: value (standalone line, most common)

  • bracket: [field:: value] (inline, visible in reading mode)

  • paren: (field:: value) (inline, hidden key in reading mode)

Insertion positions:

  • after_frontmatter: After YAML frontmatter (or start if none)

  • start: Very beginning of file

  • end: Very end of file

When to use:

  • Adding metadata to existing notes

  • Batch tagging/categorization

  • Automated property assignment

  • Template-based field injection

Returns: Success status, formatted field string, and canonical key

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
file_pathYesPath to note file (relative to vault)
keyYesField key
valueYesField value (will be auto-typed: number, boolean, date, etc.)
syntax_typeNoSyntax variant: full-line (field:: value), bracket ([field:: value]), paren ((field:: value))full-line
insert_atNoWhere to insert the fieldafter_frontmatter
vault_pathNoPath to vault (optional, uses OBSIDIAN_VAULT_PATH env if not provided)
ctxNo
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: auto-detection of value types, syntax variants, insertion positions, and returns success info. It does not mention file permissions or potential conflicts, but covers core behavior well.

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 well-structured with clear sections and bullet points. Every sentence adds value, and the most important information (purpose, usage) is front-loaded. Concise without missing critical details.

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 lack of output schema, the description usefully states return values (success, formatted field string, key). It covers purpose, parameters, and behavior adequately. Missing error handling or prerequisite info, but sufficient for typical use.

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?

Schema coverage is high (86%), but the description adds value by explaining 'value' auto-typing and detailing 'syntax_type' and 'insert_at' with examples and defaults. It goes beyond just restating 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 action ('Add'), the resource ('Dataview inline field to a note'), and the scope ('filesystem-native, offline'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like remove_dataview_field_tool and search_by_dataview_field_tool by specifying it is for adding new fields.

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?

The description includes a 'When to use' section listing appropriate scenarios (e.g., adding metadata, batch tagging). However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use the tool or compare it to alternatives like update_frontmatter_field_fs_tool for frontmatter fields.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/aleksakarac/obsidian-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server