Runs an Obsidian command palette action on Windows by command ID, letting AI agents or WSL users trigger vault commands through the Local REST API.
Executa uma ação da paleta de comandos do Obsidian no Windows.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| commandId | Yes | ID do comando a executar (ex: 'editor:save-file', obtido via list_commands). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden and largely fails it. It does not say that arbitrary registered commands may mutate or delete notes, whether execution is reversible, what happens on failure, or that the platform is limited to Windows. Only the Windows constraint adds any behavioral context.
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?
One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though brevity here shades into under-specification rather than tightness.
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?
For a single-parameter tool that arbitrary-executes commands with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits the operation's side effects and success/failure semantics. The platform note is the only extra context supplied.
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 100%: commandId is documented with format ('editor:save-file') and its source (list_commands). The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: it executes an Obsidian command-palette action. The resource (command palette command) is clear and distinguishable from siblings like list_commands or read_note. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with the sibling that produces the command IDs.
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?
No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The only hint that this follows list_commands lives in the schema's parameter description, not in the tool description. An agent gets no statement of preconditions (Obsidian running, command registered) or of alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.