Another bloated Obsidian MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

remove_from_array_field

Remove specific values from array fields in a note's frontmatter, such as tags or aliases. Specify the note path, field name, and values to delete.

Instructions

Remove values from an array field in frontmatter (e.g., tags, aliases).

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>",
      "field": "<field>",
      "values": "<values>"
    },
    "name": "remove_from_array_field"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`path`	Yes	Path to the note
`field`	Yes	Name of the array field (e.g., "tags", "aliases")
`values`	Yes	Values to remove from the array

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.3.0Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the core operation without mentioning side effects (e.g., whether the field is deleted if empty), error handling for missing fields, or reversibility. For a mutation tool, this 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?

The description is a single sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, with a parenthetical example. Every word is necessary, and there is no redundancy.

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 the tool has no annotations, no output schema, and only basic parameter descriptions, the description is too sparse. It does not explain return behavior, error conditions, or edge cases (e.g., removing non-existent values), leaving the agent with insufficient context for robust invocation.

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 input schema covers all 3 parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds examples ('tags', 'aliases') for the field parameter, but this merely echoes schema examples. No additional semantic value is provided beyond the schema.

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 'Remove' and clearly identifies the resource: array field in frontmatter, with examples (tags, aliases). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_to_array_field (which adds) and remove_frontmatter_field (which removes an entire field).

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 the use case: removing specific values from array fields in frontmatter. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like remove_tag or update_frontmatter, nor does it provide exclusionary guidance.

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