Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Obsidian MCP Server

Obsidian MCP Server

by cupkappu
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

update_active_file

Overwrite the currently active Obsidian file's content with new content provided by the user.

Instructions

Replace the content of the currently active file

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": {
      "content": "<content>"
    },
    "name": "update_active_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
contentYesNew content for the file

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It clearly states the core destructive behavior (replacing content), but it does not disclose prerequisites (e.g., the file must already exist and be active), irreversibility beyond the word 'replace', or any side effects. The statement is minimal but accurate.

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?

A single, clear sentence that is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words. It efficiently states the tool's purpose without any filler.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately captures the essential action. It could slightly benefit from an explicit note about the file needing to exist and the fact that this replaces rather than appends, but overall it is sufficiently complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 schema has 100% coverage with the parameter 'content' described as 'New content for the file'. The description adds little beyond echoing this, simply connecting the parameter to the replacement action. The baseline of 3 is appropriate given the schema already handles semantics.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description uses a specific verb 'Replace' with a clear resource 'content of the currently active file'. It distinguishes well from siblings like append_to_active_file (which adds content) and create_or_update_file (which handles named files).

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 phrase 'currently active file' implies a usage context, and the verb 'replace' implies when to use it (full overwrite). However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives like append_to_active_file or create_or_update_file, nor any exclusions.

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