Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Obsidian MCP Server

Obsidian MCP Server

by aniketbiswas
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

search_with_context

Search notes and view content snippets to preview matches, helping you judge relevance without opening each note.

Instructions

Search notes and return results with content snippets/context. Useful for previewing search results without opening each note.

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": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "search_with_context"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMaximum number of results (default: 10).
queryYesSearch query.
contextLengthNoLength of context snippet to show (default: 150).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.2

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior (returns snippets/context) and the practical benefit (avoid opening each note). It does not, however, explain ordering, matching semantics, or behavior with edge cases, making the transparency adequate but minimal.

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 two concise sentences that immediately convey function and use case, with no redundant or filler content.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a relatively simple search tool with full schema coverage, the description is sufficient to understand what it does and when to use it. It could add more distinction from sibling search tools or describe result format, but overall it is complete enough.

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 input schema provides complete descriptions for all three parameters, including defaults and ranges. The tool description adds no extra parameter information, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 that the tool searches notes and returns results with content snippets/context, which is a specific verb+resource+output. It hints at differentiation from plain search tools by emphasizing snippets, but does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling search tools like search_notes.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description includes a concrete use case: 'useful for previewing search results without opening each note.' This implies when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so it stops short of full guidance.

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