Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Obsidian MCP Extended

Obsidian MCP Extended

by aleksakarac
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

open_file_tool

Open a file in Obsidian by specifying its path. Optionally open it in a new pane.

Instructions

Open file in Obsidian (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": {
      "file_path": "<file_path>"
    },
    "name": "open_file_tool"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
file_pathYesFile path to open
new_paneNo
ctxNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.1.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the runtime requirement, but does not disclose what opening a file entails (e.g., effect on current workspace, whether it replaces or opens in new pane).

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?

Single sentence with no wasted words. Front-loads the core purpose and critical prerequisite.

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?

The description is too brief for a tool with three parameters (one required) and no output schema. It omits details on the effect of new_pane, ctx, and what happens on success or failure.

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?

With schema description coverage at 33%, the description should compensate, but it only repeats 'Open file' which mirrors the file_path description. It adds no meaning for new_pane or ctx parameters.

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 opens a file in Obsidian, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like read_note_tool (which reads content) and create_note_tool (which creates).

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?

Only mentions the prerequisite 'requires Obsidian running', but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., read_note_tool, create_note_tool) or when not to use it.

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