Obsidian CLI MCP Server

by husitao

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

TypeScript

Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: listing, reading, writing, searching, status, help, and a generic escape hatch. No overlap or ambiguity.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow the consistent pattern 'obsidian_<action>' with snake_case, making it predictable for the agent.
Tool Count5/5
Seven tools is well-scoped for an Obsidian CLI wrapper, covering essential operations without being excessive or insufficient.
Completeness4/5
Covers core CRUD (read, write), search, list, status, and help. Missing explicit delete or rename, but the escape hatch fills gaps.
Average 3.3/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored. Lowest: 2.4/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 2 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
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

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only says 'list', implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose any behavioral details such as authentication requirements, side effects, or error conditions. The description is too brief to be transparent.
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 of 8 words, making it concise. However, it lacks any structural elements like examples or usage context. It is minimally adequate but not well-structured.
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 no output schema, no annotations, and 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage, the description fails to provide complete context. It does not describe return values, parameter dependencies, or error conditions, leaving gaps for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% parameter description coverage, and the tool description does not explain any parameters (type, vault, folder, extension). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema's property names and enum values.
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 vaults, files, or folders, using the verb 'list' and specifying three resource types. It distinguishes from sibling tools (obsidian_read_note, obsidian_write_note, etc.) which perform different actions. However, it could be more precise about what 'known to Obsidian' means.
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 alternatives (e.g., obsidian_search for searching notes). It does not mention prerequisites or context, leaving the agent to guess.
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?
The description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond the basic purpose. It fails to mention that the tool is read-only, does not describe the return format (e.g., file paths, snippets), and gives no details on search behavior like exact vs fuzzy matching. With no annotations, this is insufficient.
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 (one short sentence), but this brevity sacrifices necessary detail. It avoids fluff, but is too minimal to be effective.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain return values, parameter interactions, or edge cases, leaving an AI agent without enough context to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 6 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description adds no information about what parameters like 'path', 'limit', 'vault', 'format', or 'context' do. The description only implies 'query' is the search term, but does not explain syntax or constraints.
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 searches note contents and returns matching files or contextual matches, distinguishing it from sibling tools like obsidian_list and obsidian_read_note. However, 'contextual matches' 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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like obsidian_list or obsidian_read_note. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases.
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 any behavioral traits such as whether the note must exist, read permissions needed, or what happens on error. Minimal disclosure.
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 with clear structure, front-loading the action and the key identifier (vault-relative path). No unnecessary words, but could be slightly expanded 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?
Given no output schema and minimal description, agent lacks info on return format, error handling, and the role of the vault parameter. Incomplete for a read operation, though complexity is low.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 50% (only 'path' has description). Description adds no extra meaning beyond schema. The 'vault' parameter lacks any description, and the description does not explain the relationship between vault and path.
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 tool reads a note from an Obsidian vault by vault-relative path. Verb 'read' is specific and resource 'note' is distinct from sibling tools like obsidian_write_note or obsidian_list.
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_list. Missing context on usage scenarios or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explains the three modes (create, append, prepend) and the overwrite flag behavior. However, it omits details on error handling when a file exists with overwrite=false, or any permission or side-effect information.
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 concise: two sentences, no fluff, and front-loaded with the core action. Every word contributes meaning.
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 moderate complexity (5 params, no output schema), the description covers the main use cases but lacks details on edge cases, error modes, and return behavior. It is adequate but not fully comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 40%, so the description should compensate but does not. It mentions modes and overwrite, but these are already in the schema. The tool has 5 parameters, and the description adds little semantic value beyond the schema's own descriptions.
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's purpose: 'Create a note or append/prepend content.' It specifies the verb (create, append, prepend) and resource (note), distinguishing it from sibling tools like obsidian_read_note and obsidian_list. It is specific and unambiguous.
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 provides implicit context for when to use the tool (to create or modify notes) but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or comparisons with alternatives. It mentions the overwrite behavior but does not address prerequisites or failure modes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states a read-only check and version return but does not detail error behavior, network dependencies, or whether it modifies state. Adequate for a simple status check, but lacking depth.
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, complete sentence with no unnecessary words. Every part is meaningful and efficiently conveys the tool's function.
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 no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description sufficiently explains the basic action. However, it could specify whether the output is a version string or an error on failure for greater completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist (schema coverage 100%), so the description does not need to add parameter info. It meets the baseline expectation for a tool with zero parameters.
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 ('Check') and resource ('Obsidian CLI'), clearly stating it checks reachability and returns version. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like obsidian_list or obsidian_write_note, which have different purposes.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as before performing other operations to verify CLI availability. The description solely states what it does without context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Describes that arguments are passed without a shell (a safety warning), but does not disclose potential destructive actions, authorization needs, or side effects. Adequate but not comprehensive.
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?
Two concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words. Every sentence adds value.
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?
No output schema, so description could mention return value (stdout). However, for a generic CLI runner, the description is fairly complete given the schema and annotations. Slight deduction for missing return clarification.
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 4 parameters with details. The description adds no new parameter semantics 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 clearly states it's an 'advanced escape hatch' for Obsidian CLI commands not covered by dedicated tools, with specific mention of passing arguments directly without a shell. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like obsidian_read_note or obsidian_list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly says to use when a feature is 'not covered by a dedicated tool', implying when-not-to-use. Provides context on argument passing (no shell). Sibling tools are listed but not directly compared, so a slight deduction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It correctly describes the tool as returning help text and inspecting command parameters. No contradictions or omissions for this simple read-only tool.
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?
Two short, focused sentences with no wasted words. The key information is presented efficiently and upfront.
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 simplicity of this help tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate. It could mention that output is text, but not necessary.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides 100% coverage with a clear description and pattern. The tool description adds context that providing a command inspects 'its current parameters and flags', which enhances understanding beyond the schema alone.
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 official CLI help, with an optional command to inspect parameters and flags. This differentiates it from siblings like obsidian_cli (which likely executes commands) and obsidian_list (listing notes).
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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only states the functionality but lacks context for decision-making.
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:

[![MCP-ObsidianCli MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/husitao/MCP-ObsidianCli/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/husitao/MCP-ObsidianCli)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![MCP-ObsidianCli MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/husitao/MCP-ObsidianCli/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/husitao/MCP-ObsidianCli)

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/husitao/MCP-ObsidianCli'

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