Append text to a note in your Obsidian vault, creating the note if it doesn't exist. Use for adding new content without rewriting existing notes.
Append to a note, creating it if absent.
The append-only primitive: prefer this over rewriting raw capture notes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| text | Yes | ||
| heading | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the non-destructive append-only nature and the create-if-absent behavior, which are key traits. It does not detail heading behavior or return values, but the core side effects are clearly conveyed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two tight sentences with no filler. The core behavior is front-loaded and the usage policy follows naturally, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the essential append behavior and preferred use case, but it omits heading semantics, path details, and any return or error behavior. Since there are no annotations or output schema, these gaps leave the tool only partially specified for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds little parameter-level meaning. It implies text is appended to a note identified by path, but the optional heading parameter and path format are left entirely unexplained, so the description does not compensate for the schema gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource ('Append to a note') and adds a defining behavior ('creating it if absent'). It also positions the tool as 'the append-only primitive,' distinguishing it from generic rewrite or write tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear guidance to prefer this tool over rewriting raw capture notes, which is a useful policy. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like patch_section or create_note, but the append-only framing provides enough context for basic selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.