Obsidian MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

create_project_note

Create a structured project note in Obsidian with goals, tasks, timeline, status, and due date. Keep project details organized and actionable.

Instructions

Create a structured project note with goals, tasks, and timeline.

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": {
      "title": "<title>"
    },
    "name": "create_project_note"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`goals`	No	Project goals.
`title`	Yes	Project name.
`folder`	No	Folder for project notes.	Projects
`status`	No	Project status.	planning
`dueDate`	No	Due date (ISO format).
`description`	No	Project description.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.2Aug 10, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

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 'Create' without disclosing overwrite behavior, folder handling, or side effects. The 'tasks' reference adds confusion rather than transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence with no fluff, which is concise in form. However, given the tool's six parameters and absent annotations, this brevity leads to under-specification rather than effective conciseness.

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 does not cover usage context, return behavior, or differentiate from sibling tools. No output schema exists, so the description should have provided more behavioral detail, but it remains minimal.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, providing baseline 3. The description adds a high-level summary but does not compensate for the 'tasks' mismatch, and it fails to clarify parameter relationships beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Create') and resource ('structured project note'), distinguishing it from generic note creation. However, the mention of 'tasks' which is not present in the schema introduces slight ambiguity.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_note or create_meeting_note. The description lacks context about prerequisites 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