Obsidian MCP Server

list_recent_notes

Retrieve recently modified notes from your Obsidian vault to track changes and access recent work.

Instructions

List recently modified notes in the vault.

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": "list_recent_notes"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	Number of notes to return (default: 20)
`folder`	No	Limit to a specific folder

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jan 20, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

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 states the tool lists notes but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or what 'recently modified' means (e.g., time frame, sorting). This is a significant gap for a tool with no structured safety hints.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 tool's low complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks behavioral details and usage guidelines, which are needed for the agent to operate effectively in a context with multiple note-related 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters ('limit' and 'folder') with their types and defaults. The description doesn't add any additional meaning beyond this, such as explaining how 'folder' paths work or constraints on 'limit', so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('recently modified notes in the vault'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_notes' or 'find_backlinks', which might also retrieve notes, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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. It doesn't mention scenarios like retrieving recent changes versus searching by content, nor does it reference sibling tools such as 'search_notes' or 'read_note' for comparison, leaving the agent without clear usage context.

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

Deploy Server