Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Another bloated Obsidian MCP Server

Another bloated Obsidian MCP Server

by diegorv
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

get_template

Retrieve the raw content of an Obsidian template by its name, without the .md extension. Use this to access unprocessed template source for reuse or editing.

Instructions

Get the raw content of a template 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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "get_template"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesName of the template (without .md extension)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.3.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the output is 'raw content' (useful transparency), but does not mention error behavior (e.g., missing template), access permissions, or whether the operation is read-only. The lack of such context is a gap.

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. It immediately conveys the tool's core function.

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 one-parameter read operation, the description is adequate but leaves gaps: it does not explain the return format beyond 'raw content', nor does it address error cases or relationship to similar tools. Given no output schema and no annotations, more detail would improve completeness.

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 description coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'name', which already states it expects a template name without extension. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond this, 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 'Get the raw content of a template file' clearly states the verb (Get), resource (template file), and scope (raw content). It distinguishes from siblings like list_templates, apply_template, and create_from_template by focusing on retrieval of raw file content.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it should be used when you need the underlying template content before applying or editing, nor does it exclude cases handled by read_note or apply_template.

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