Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
obsidian-mcp

obsidian-mcp

by fodaveg
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

List files in the vault

obsidian_list_files

List notes and files in an Obsidian vault, filtered by folder or file extension.

Instructions

Lists notes/files in the vault, optionally filtered by folder or extension.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "obsidian_list_files"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
extNoFile extension filter, e.g. "md"
jsonNoReturn machine-readable JSON output.
folderNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies read-only behavior but does not disclose any permissions, limitations, side effects, or output format. Lacks details like pagination or error handling.

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?

Single sentence with no wasted words. All essential information is front-loaded. Efficient and clear.

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 listing tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks details about return format (e.g., list of file names, paths) and any default behavior. The three parameters are partially explained, but overall the description does not fully equip an agent to invoke the tool correctly without guessing.

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 67% (folder param lacks schema description). The description adds meaning by mentioning filtering by folder or extension, reinforcing ext and folder. However, the 'json' parameter's purpose is not explained in the description, and the description does not compensate fully for the undocumented folder parameter.

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 the specific verb 'Lists' and resource 'notes/files in the vault', clearly indicating what the tool does. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like obsidian_read (reads content) and obsidian_search (searches) by focusing on listing/filtering.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like obsidian_search or obsidian_read. The description does not mention any prerequisites or contextual hints for selection.

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