Obsidian Second Brain MCP

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a distinct purpose: starting/ending sessions, logging bugs/features, recording decisions, and checking status. Descriptions clearly differentiate them, leaving no ambiguity.
Naming Consistency4/5
All tools share the 'project_memory_' prefix with verb_noun for most (close_session, log_bug, etc.). 'start' and 'status' deviate slightly (verb only and noun only), but the pattern remains highly predictable.
Tool Count5/5
Six tools cover the essential operations for a project memory system without excess. Each tool serves a clear, non-redundant purpose.
Completeness5/5
The tool set covers the full lifecycle of project memory: start, log (bugs, features, decisions), close, and status check. No obvious gaps for the intended domain.
Average 3.7/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored. Lowest: 3.1/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 1 commit in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'append ... record to Obsidian' which implies non-destructive logging but lacks details on side effects, permissions, or whether it overwrites or creates new entries.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence plus a usage clause, very concise with no wasted words. However, it lacks necessary parameter details, making it less useful despite brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 9 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to explain parameters, return values, or constraints, leaving the agent with insufficient information to invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no explanation of any of the 9 parameters (e.g., projectPath, title, status, fix, etc.). The agent gets no guidance beyond what the schema's property names and types offer.
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 clearly states the action ('append a bug investigation or fix record to Obsidian') and the lifecycle context ('bug is identified, investigated, fixed, verified, or left blocked'). It implicitly differentiates from sibling tools like project_memory_log_feature and project_memory_record_decision by focusing on bugs.
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?
It explicitly lists conditions for use (when a bug is identified, investigated, fixed, verified, or blocked). However, it does not mention when not to use or direct the agent to alternative siblings for non-bug tasks.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states 'append a record' but doesn't disclose idempotency, side effects, or permission requirements. The behavioral insight is 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?
Two succinct sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence states purpose, the second gives usage context. Very efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description fails to provide enough context. It does not describe return values or parameter semantics, leaving the agent underinformed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no explanation of any of the 9 parameters, including required ones like projectPath and title. The agent gets no help understanding parameter meanings.
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 clearly states it appends a feature planning or implementation record to Obsidian and specifies the contexts (starting, changing, completing, deferring feature work). It distinguishes from sibling tools like project_memory_log_bug.
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?
Explicitly tells when to use (starting, changing, completing, deferring feature work), implicitly suggesting alternatives for other activities, though not explicitly stating when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses a write/append operation but omits details on side effects, idempotency, or what happens if called multiple times.
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?
Two sentences front-load the purpose and usage; no wasted words. Efficiently structured for quick comprehension.
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?
Given 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It fails to explain what a session record contains, required prerequisites, or how it integrates with sibling tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds no meaning to the 9 parameters. While parameter names are partially self-explanatory, the tool description should clarify their purpose and interplay.
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 clearly states the action ('close the loop') and the resource ('session record to Obsidian'), and the usage context distinguishes it from siblings like logging bugs or features.
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?
Provides explicit when to use: 'before final response when code, docs, bugs, features, tests, or deployment status changed.' Lacks when-not-to-use or alternatives, but context is helpful.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It indicates the decision is 'durable' and stored 'in Obsidian', implying persistence, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., file creation/overwrite), authorization needs, or error states. Adequate but could be more explicit.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the main action ('Record') and context ('durable project decision in Obsidian'). Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
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?
Given 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is somewhat incomplete. It omits parameter explanations and return value format. However, the tool's purpose and usage context are well-covered, making it minimally adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'decision' and 'why' implicitly but does not explain the purpose or format of any parameter (e.g., projectPath, impact, alternatives). The agent lacks crucial details for constructing valid inputs.
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 clearly states the action: 'Record a durable project decision in Obsidian.' It lists specific scenarios (chooses approach, rejects alternatives, changes scope, decides deployment/release behavior) that distinguish it from sibling tools like logging bugs or features.
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 explicitly tells when to use the tool: 'Use when the agent or user chooses an approach, rejects alternatives, changes scope, or decides deployment/release behavior.' It does not mention when not to use or provide alternatives, but the guidance is clear and actionable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must compensate. It states action but lacks detail on side effects, idempotency, or error conditions. For example, whether loading overwrites existing memory is unspecified.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with action and usage guidance. No superfluous words; every sentence adds value.
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 simple load operation with no output schema, description covers main usage scenarios. Could mention that it initializes memory context, but overall sufficient.
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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. Description adds no additional meaning beyond schema, meeting the baseline but not improving it.
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?
Description uses specific verb 'load' and identifies resource 'compact Obsidian project memory pack'. Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools (close, log, record, status) which serve different purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when to use: 'at session start, before bug fixes, before feature work, and before project health reviews'. Provides clear context for appropriate invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool checks and lists, implying no side effects, but it does not explicitly state non-destructiveness or permissions needed. The behavior is adequately described for a simple status check, but more transparency would help.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the key action and purpose. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy.
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 read-only status tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains what the tool checks and what it lists. It could optionally mention the return format, but that is not critical given the 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 covers 100% of parameters, and their descriptions are clear. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides for the single parameter 'projectPath'. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Check whether this repo is linked to an Obsidian project memory pack and list missing standard notes.' It specifies the verb (check), resource (repo linked to Obsidian project memory pack), and outcome (list missing notes). This is distinct from sibling tools like project_memory_start or project_memory_log_bug.
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 implies usage context—checking status before taking actions like starting a session or logging. However, it does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives or when not to use. The sibling names provide context, but explicit guidance is missing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

obsidian-second-brain-mcp-and-skill MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

[![obsidian-second-brain-mcp-and-skill MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/dhaseeb-proj/obsidian-second-brain-mcp-and-skill/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/dhaseeb-proj/obsidian-second-brain-mcp-and-skill)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![obsidian-second-brain-mcp-and-skill MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/dhaseeb-proj/obsidian-second-brain-mcp-and-skill/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/dhaseeb-proj/obsidian-second-brain-mcp-and-skill)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/dhaseeb-proj/obsidian-second-brain-mcp-and-skill'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server