Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Obsidian MCP Server

Obsidian MCP Server

by cupkappu
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

list_directory

List the files and folders inside any directory of an Obsidian vault using a path relative to the vault root. Leave the path empty to list the root directory.

Instructions

List files and folders in a directory

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_directory"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathNoDirectory path relative to vault root (empty for root)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action and does not reveal whether the listing is recursive, includes hidden files, or handles errors. No additional context is given about the operation's safety or side effects.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words—'List files and folders in a directory'—that efficiently conveys the core functionality.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, this description is minimally adequate. However, it omits details about the return format, recursion behavior, or hidden files, which would improve completeness given the absence of annotations and output schema.

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 fully documents the single 'path' parameter (100% schema description coverage), including its meaning and default. The tool description adds no extra parameter information, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('List') and the resource ('files and folders in a directory'), which distinguishes it from siblings like get_file or search_simple. However, it does not mention the vault-rooted path scope or explicitly differentiate alternatives, so it falls slightly short of a top score.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage for listing directory contents but offers no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives. It lacks any exclusions or context about scenarios where other tools (e.g., search_simple) would be more appropriate.

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