Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Obsidian MCP Extended

Obsidian MCP Extended

by aleksakarac
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

move_note_tool

Move a note to a new path and update all links in other notes to prevent broken references.

Instructions

Move a note to a new location, optionally updating all links.

Args: source_path: Current path of the note destination_path: New path for the note update_links: Whether to update links in other notes (default: true)

Returns: Move status and updated links count

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": {
      "source_path": "<source_path>",
      "destination_path": "<destination_path>"
    },
    "name": "move_note_tool"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
source_pathYes
destination_pathYes
update_linksNo
ctxNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description should fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions link updating but does not state whether the tool is destructive, if it overwrites existing notes, or any permission requirements. The return value is vague ('Move status').

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 concise: a single summary line followed by clear args and returns. Every sentence is necessary and well-structured, with no redundancy.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the tool is a mutation with no output schema, the description should explain what happens if the destination already exists, what 'updating links' means in detail, and the exact format of the return value. It falls short on these details.

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?

The description explains source_path, destination_path, and update_links with their roles. However, it omits the 'ctx' parameter present in the schema (despite schema coverage being 0%), so not all parameters are covered.

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 ('Move a note to a new location') and key behavior ('optionally updating all links'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_note or delete_note by specifying the move operation.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like move_folder or create_note. The description lacks context about prerequisites or scenarios where this tool is appropriate.

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