Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Obsidian MCP Extended

Obsidian MCP Extended

by aleksakarac
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

execute_command_tool

Run any Obsidian command by its ID, such as toggling bold, directly from your workflow. Requires Obsidian to be open.

Instructions

Execute Obsidian command (requires Obsidian running).

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": {
      "command_id": "<command_id>"
    },
    "name": "execute_command_tool"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
command_idYesCommand ID (e.g., 'editor:toggle-bold')
ctxNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.1.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It describes the action ('Execute') but provides no information about side effects, error behavior, or whether it modifies data. The one additional detail is the requirement for Obsidian to be running.

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 a single sentence of 7 words, front-loaded with the action, and contains no redundant information. Every word earns its place.

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 tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It includes a crucial prerequisite but does not explain what constitutes a valid command_id, whether the command returns output, or safety considerations.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 50%: only command_id has a description. The tool description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema already provides, nor does it compensate for the missing description of the 'ctx' parameter.

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 'Execute Obsidian command' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly stating what the tool does. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, as no other tool is dedicated to executing arbitrary Obsidian commands.

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 mentions a prerequisite ('requires Obsidian running'), which gives some usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide examples or exclusions.

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