obsidian-mcp-context

by gavinsomers

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.7.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a specific aspect of the vault context: get operations for different entity types (entity, note, person, project), list operations for distinct entity attributes (decisions, risks, open loops, tasks, etc.), and search operations. There is no meaningful overlap; every tool has a clearly distinct purpose.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent verb_vault_noun pattern with snake_case (e.g., get_vault_entity_context, list_vault_entities, search_vault_blocks). The use of 'vault' as a prefix is uniform, and the verbs are limited to get, list, and search. Minor singular/plural variations (entity vs. entities) do not disrupt the predictable structure.
Tool Count4/5
With 19 tools, the server is slightly above the typical well-scoped range (3-15) but still reasonable given the breadth of entity types and operations. Each tool seems justified for the domain of vault context retrieval, so the count is appropriate.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers a wide range of read operations: getting specific entity contexts, listing various entity attributes and events, and searching. Minor gaps exist, such as the absence of get operations for individual decisions, risks, or tasks (only list is available). However, agents can still retrieve needed information through filtering, so the surface is nearly complete for a read-only context server.
Average 3/5 across 19 of 19 tools scored. Lowest: 2.3/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 130 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on June 28, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description adds no behavioral details beyond the name. It fails to disclose whether list is paginated, filtered, or how relationships are defined. The description is entirely insufficient for understanding tool behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (one sentence), but lacks structure and critical details. While brevity is valued, it sacrifices completeness and clarity.
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 6 parameters and an output schema (though not shown in description), the description is far too minimal. It does not explain what the output contains, how to use filters, or how it relates to sibling tools. Incomplete for effective use.
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%, so the schema already documents all 6 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning or context for parameters; it merely restates the tool's name. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema bears the burden.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'List generic relationships between modeled entities.' It uses a clear verb and resource, but 'generic relationships' is vague and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like list_vault_entity_open_loops or list_vault_entity_states. No specificity about what constitutes a relationship.
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 vs. alternatives. With many sibling list tools, the description offers no context for selection, such as when relationships differ from events or states.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as idempotency, side effects, required permissions, or what 'deterministic' means.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence is concise but at the expense of clarity and completeness. Could include more detail without being overly long.
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?
With 6 parameters, many siblings, and an output schema, the description is too brief. It does not explain what 'context rows' are or how this search differs from other vault search/list tools.
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 baseline is 3. Description adds no extra information about parameters beyond what schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Search curated deterministic context rows for agent use', which gives a verb and resource, but 'context rows' is vague and does not differentiate from siblings like 'search_vault_blocks' or 'get_vault_entity_context'.
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 the many sibling tools. No exclusions or context provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavior. It only states 'Summarize...', implying a read operation, but does not confirm idempotency, side effects, or return type. The output schema exists but the description does not leverage it to explain behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no extraneous information. It is concise, though the word 'deterministic' is ambiguous and could be removed for greater clarity.
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 provides a minimal overview but lacks details on the summary content, use cases, or expected output. Given that an output schema exists, the description could have been more specific about what the summary includes. It is adequate but leaves gaps.
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%, and the input schema clearly describes both parameters ('vault_path' and 'duckdb_path'). The description adds no additional information beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Summarize deterministic warehouse dimensions, facts, and marts,' which provides a verb and a general resource. However, it is vague and does not clearly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_vault_entities' or 'get_vault_entity_context'. The term 'deterministic' adds confusion rather than clarity.
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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions. The description lacks any usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior, but it only states the basic return action. No information about side effects, permissions, or output structure is provided, leaving significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (one sentence) but lacks structure for a tool with multiple parameters and an output schema. It is concise but not optimally front-loaded with key details.
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 complexity of 5 parameters, existence of an output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what timeline rows contain, how they differ from events, or any constraints on usage.
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%, so the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. The baseline score is 3, and the description does not improve upon it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'return' and resource 'timeline rows' connected to a modeled entity. It is mostly clear, but lacks explicit differentiation from sibling tools like list_vault_entity_events, which may overlap in 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 such as get_vault_entity_context or list_vault_entity_events. The description does not specify context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states what the tool does, not any side effects, safety, or performance characteristics. The description is too minimal to inform agent decision-making.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specified. Every word earns its place, but the description lacks structure and could benefit from additional context without being verbose.
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 7 parameters and many sibling tools, the description is too brief. It does not explain what 'state rows' are, what the output contains (though output schema exists), or how this tool fits into the broader vault entity context. Completeness is insufficient.
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%, so the input schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the tool's purpose. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the work, but the description offers no extra value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'list' and resource 'state rows for stateful entities', clearly indicating the tool's action and subject. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_vault_entities or list_vault_entity_events by focusing on states, but the meaning of 'generic state rows' is somewhat vague.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool, when not, or how it compares to alternatives. There is no mention of context or prerequisites, leaving the agent without direction for appropriate invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the data source (dbt mart) and optional filters, but omits details like pagination, sorting, side effects, or data volume expectations. The description is too minimal to convey transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence. It is concise (10 words) and immediately conveys purpose. However, it could include more detail without losing conciseness.
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?
With 5 parameters (1 required) and an output schema, the description should provide more context about what decisions are, how filters work, or any constraints. It lacks completeness, leaving the agent with only the schema to interpret behavior.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description aligns with 'entity' and 'status' parameters as optional filters, but does not add new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The mention of 'dbt mart-backed' gives context but not for specific parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it lists decisions from a dbt mart with optional filters. It is specific about the resource (decisions) and source (dbt mart), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling list tools like list_vault_entity_events or list_vault_entity_open_loops.
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. The description only mentions optional filters, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the name and schema alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description alone must disclose behaviors. It only states what the tool does—list entities—but omits whether it is read-only, permissions required, data freshness, or any side effects. The limit parameter hints at pagination but it is not explained.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, efficient and front-loaded. It could be slightly improved by mentioning the entity source or filtering capabilities, but it is not overly verbose.
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 5 parameters, no annotations, and a large sibling set, the description is incomplete. It lacks usage context, behavioral details, and does not help an agent decide when to call this tool over more specific counterparts. The presence of an output schema slightly reduces the need to explain return values, but overall completeness is low.
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?
Input schema covers all 5 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The tool description adds minimal extra meaning, only noting entities are derived from notes, wikilinks, and tags. The schema already explains filters and defaults, so the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists 'modeled entities derived from notes, wikilinks, and tags,' distinguishing it from siblings like list_vault_notes or list_vault_entity_types. It identifies the resource and verb well, though 'modeled entities' is somewhat vague compared to more specific siblings.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. With 18 sibling tools, agents receive no help choosing between list_vault_entities and specific context tools like get_vault_entity_context or list_vault_entity_events.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as pagination (limit parameter), filtering behavior, or any side effects. It only states the basic function.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence. While it lacks structure, it is efficient and front-loaded with the core action.
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 5 parameters and many sibling tools, the description is too minimal. It omits context about what 'open loops' are, how filtering works, and does not leverage the existence of an output schema.
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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as how parameters interact or examples.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists open loops attached to entity types, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from the general list_vault_open_loops sibling by specifying entity attachment, but does not elaborate on 'modeled entity type'.
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 like list_vault_open_loops or other entity tools. The description does not mention exclusions or preferred scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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. It only states that the tool lists observed entity types, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, error conditions, or performance characteristics. More details on what 'observed' means or how the registry works would enhance transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—a single sentence with no wasted words. However, for a tool with three parameters and an output schema, the description could be slightly more detailed without becoming verbose. It earns a high score for efficiency but loses a point for under-specification.
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's complexity (three parameters, no annotations, output schema exists), the description is insufficient. It does not clarify what entity types are, how they are observed, or what the output contains. The presence of an output schema reduces the burden slightly, but the description still lacks essential context for an agent to use the tool correctly.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema; it simply states the tool lists entity types. The parameters (vault_path, limit, duckdb_path) are well-documented in the schema, so no further explanation is needed from the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'entity types observed in the dbt entity registry,' distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_vault_entities which lists actual entities. It could be more specific about what constitutes an 'entity type,' but the purpose is clear.
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 like list_vault_entities or list_vault_entity_events. The description does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or context for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description entirely bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely states the action without detailing retrieval behavior, pagination, sorting, or prerequisites. The limit parameter's cap (200 rows) is not mentioned.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single clear sentence, efficiently conveying the core purpose. It is well front-loaded and free of unnecessary words. However, it may be too terse given the lack of behavioral details.
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?
Considering the tool's simplicity (2 params, output schema present), the description is minimally adequate. It does not explain the return structure or behavior constraints (e.g., limit cap, whether results are ordered). Some gaps remain.
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% (both parameters have descriptions). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, which already documents the purpose of vault_path and limit. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List text notes found in the configured vault', specifying the verb ('list'), resource ('text notes'), and scope ('configured vault'). It is unambiguous, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools.
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 (e.g., get_vault_note_context or search_vault_blocks). The description neither suggests appropriate contexts nor excludes inappropriate ones.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions 'dbt mart-backed' and 'from unchecked tasks,' implying a read operation, but does not specify authorization, rate limits, side effects, or the meaning of 'open loops.' This leaves significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, very concise. It avoids redundancy, but the brevity comes at the cost of clarity and completeness. It is well-structured for a quick read.
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 4 parameters and an output schema, the description is overly sparse. It does not explain what an 'open loop' is, what 'unchecked tasks' means, or how the dbt mart is used. The output schema may help, but the description itself is insufficient for understanding the tool's context.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any extra meaning for the parameters beyond what the schema already provides. It does not explain how 'entity' filtering works or the role of 'duckdb_path'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource ('List dbt mart-backed open loops from unchecked tasks'), which distinguishes it from siblings like 'list_vault_entity_open_loops' (entity-specific) and 'list_vault_tasks' (tasks, not loops). However, the term 'open loops' and the scope (global vs. entity) could be clearer.
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. For example, there is a sibling 'list_vault_entity_open_loops' that likely filters by entity, but the description does not mention this or provide context for choosing between them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only says 'list parsed Markdown tasks with provenance'. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, permission needs, or performance characteristics.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise at one sentence, but it is too brief for a tool with 5 parameters and siblings. It does not waste words but lacks structure and depth.
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?
Given the 5 parameters and presence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values, but it still lacks contextual details about what 'parsed' means or how 'provenance' is provided. Completeness is adequate but minimal.
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?
All 5 parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage), so the description adds no additional parameter-level meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists parsed Markdown tasks with provenance, but it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like list_vault_notes or search_vault_blocks, which could also involve tasks.
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 the siblings. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, alternatives, or context for invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only states it returns context but does not disclose what context includes, side effects (likely read-only), performance characteristics, or authentication requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that conveys the core purpose without fluff. It is concise but could benefit from additional detail without being verbose.
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 output schema exists, return values are covered, but the tool has 5 parameters and many siblings. The description lacks information on parameter relationships, constraints, and when to prefer this generic tool over specific ones.
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 parameters are already described in schema (e.g., exact entity name, vault path). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline expectation.
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 returns context for typed entities and specifies it is dbt mart-backed. It distinguishes from siblings like get_vault_entity_timeline (timeline) and get_vault_note_context (note-specific).
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 generic context tool versus sibling tools like get_vault_note_context or get_vault_project_context. No when-not-to-use conditions or alternatives mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the returned content and that the data is dbt mart-backed, but omits side effects, read-only nature, permissions, or rate limits. Minimal transparency.
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?
A single 10-word sentence that clearly states the tool's purpose. Extremely concise, front-loaded, and no wasted words.
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?
With an output schema present, return value explanation is not needed. However, the description lacks context about the project concept, required parameters (vault_path, project), and how the dbt mart backing relates. Adequate but not rich.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the input schema already provides. No enhancement.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns dbt mart-backed project context including decisions, risks, and open loops. The verb 'Return' and resource 'project context' are specific, but it does not distinguish from sibling tools like list_vault_decisions or get_vault_entity_context which may overlap.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many siblings (e.g., list_vault_decisions, get_vault_entity_context). It neither states preferred contexts nor excludes alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description is minimal. It does not disclose if the operation is read-only, performance implications, or other behavioral traits beyond listing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, no wasted words. Could be slightly more informative but remains concise.
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?
Despite having an output schema, the description lacks context on what constitutes an 'entity event' and provides no examples or usage hints. Incomplete for a 6-parameter tool.
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% with clear descriptions for each parameter. The tool description adds no extra meaning but does not need to; 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?
Clearly states the tool lists entity events from the dbt warehouse. Distinguishes from siblings like 'list_vault_entities' and 'list_vault_entity_states' by focusing on events.
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. The description does not mention context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only status, required permissions, or side effects. The minimal description fails to inform about broader execution context.
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, front-loaded with key purpose. No wasted words. Efficient and direct.
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?
With an output schema present, return values need not be explained. However, the description omits mention of key parameters (vault_path required, limit cap) and does not sufficiently differentiate from similar list tools given the large sibling set. Adequate but incomplete.
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 baseline is 3. The description mentions 'optional entity and status filters,' which aligns with schema but adds no new detail beyond what the schema descriptions already provide. Other parameters (limit, vault_path, duckdb_path) are not addressed in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool lists dbt mart-backed risks with optional filters. It specifies the resource (risks) and scope (dbt mart-backed), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling list tools like list_vault_decisions or list_vault_tasks.
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. The description implies usage for listing risks but provides no exclusions or context for choosing among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states a basic action. It does not disclose traits like read-only vs. destructive, performance implications, or other behavioral details beyond the core operation.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence of 8 words conveys the tool's essence without waste or redundancy. Every word earns its place.
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?
Given 5 parameters (1 required) and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It mentions provenance but does not clarify search scope (e.g., within a vault). Context is implied but not rich.
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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The tool-level description adds no extra meaning beyond 'search', relying on the schema's per-parameter descriptions. 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 specifies the action ('Search'), the resource ('parsed note blocks'), and includes a distinctive detail ('with file and line provenance'). It effectively differentiates from sibling tools like get_vault_note_context and list_vault_notes, which focus on note-level operations.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tools, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only notes the tool is 'dbt mart-backed' but omits whether it is read-only, potential side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. This is insufficient for a tool with 4 parameters.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with minimal waste. However, it could be restructured to include key details like parameter role or usage hints without increasing length significantly.
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?
Given the presence of an output schema, return values are covered. However, the tool has 4 parameters and no behavioral or usage guidance in the description. While the output is hinted (decisions, risks, open loops), the description is not complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly without extra context.
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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema already provides; thus it does not improve parameter understanding.
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 it returns dbt mart-backed person context including specific items like decisions, risks, and open loops. The verb 'Return' and resource 'person context' are precise, and the tool name distinguishes it from siblings like get_vault_entity_context.
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 use when needing person context, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_vault_entity_context) or when not to use it. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not specify what 'parsed context' includes (e.g., backlinks, tags, metadata), lacks info on side effects (though a GET is safe), auth needs, or rate limits. Significant gaps remain.
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, no filler, front-loaded with purpose. Every word earns its place.
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?
Output schema exists, so return value details are not needed. Description covers core purpose clearly. Could briefly note that returned data is structured context, but not required.
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% with both parameters described. The description adds 'vault-relative note path' which mirrors schema. No additional meaning beyond schema; 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?
Description clearly states the verb (Fetch), resource (parsed context), and constraint (one vault-relative note path). It distinguishes from siblings like list_vault_notes and search_vault_blocks by focusing on context retrieval for a specific note.
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?
Description implies usage when needing parsed context of a specific note, but provides no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternatives. The sibling tools offer contrast, but guidance is not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![obsidian-mcp-context MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/gavinsomers/obsidian-mcp-context/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/gavinsomers/obsidian-mcp-context)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![obsidian-mcp-context MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/gavinsomers/obsidian-mcp-context/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/gavinsomers/obsidian-mcp-context)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/gavinsomers/obsidian-mcp-context'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server