Another bloated Obsidian MCP Server

by diegorv

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Local

get_attachments_in_note

List all attachment references (embeds and links) contained in a note; supply the note path to retrieve them.

Instructions

Get all attachment references (embeds and links) in a specific note.

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": "get_attachments_in_note"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes	Path to the note

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.3.0Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

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 clearly indicates a read-only operation ('get') and specifies that the result is references (embeds and links), not attachment content. However, it does not disclose output format, resolution behavior, or whether references in frontmatter are included, leaving some ambiguity.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the main verb and object, and contains no redundant or filler words. It is appropriately concise.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description adequately explains its core purpose and result type. However, it could have clarified the return structure (e.g., a list of paths or objects) and whether it includes all link types consistently, making it slightly incomplete for an agent.

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 already describes the only parameter 'path' as 'Path to the note', giving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 retrieves all attachment references (embeds and links) within a specific note, using the specific verb 'get' and resource 'attachment references in a note.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_attachments (vault-wide) or get_attachment_info (single attachment metadata).

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 'in a specific note' implies the tool is scoped to a particular note, so an agent could infer when to use it. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like list_attachments or get_attachment_info, and no exclusions or conditions are mentioned.

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