Another bloated Obsidian MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

create_note_backup

Create a timestamped backup of an Obsidian note in a custom folder, enabling easy restoration and protecting against accidental changes.

Instructions

Create a backup copy of a note. Stores in .backups folder with timestamp.

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": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "create_note_backup"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes	Path to the note to backup
`backupFolder`	No	Folder to store backups (default: .backups)	.backups

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.3.0Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does add useful behavior details (storage location and timestamp naming), but it does not disclose potential side effects like folder creation, overwrite behavior, or error conditions. This is adequate but not rich.

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, perfectly concise and front-loaded. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple backup tool, but it lacks information about return values, error handling, or what happens when the source note doesn't exist. With no output schema and no annotations, these gaps are noticeable, though the tool's simplicity mitigates the impact.

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%, so the schema fully documents both parameters (path and backupFolder). The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond restating the storage location, which is already implied by the backupFolder default. 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: creating a backup copy of a note, with the specific detail that it stores in a .backups folder with a timestamp. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like restore_backup and list_backups.

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 backing up a note but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or complementary tools. It is a simple tool, so the lack of explicit guidance is noticeable but not critical.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.