Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
obsidian-mcp-server

obsidian-mcp-server

by indie-geeker
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

create_note

Add a new Markdown note to an Obsidian vault by specifying filename and content, plus an optional folder path.

Instructions

Create a new note in the Obsidian vault

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": {
      "filename": "<filename>",
      "content": "<content>"
    },
    "name": "create_note"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathNoOptional folder path within the vault (e.g., 'Projects/Work')
contentYesContent of the note in Markdown format
filenameYesName of the note file (without .md extension)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does not say what happens if a note with that filename already exists (overwrite vs. error), whether the vault path must pre-exist, or what the tool returns.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized, though it is so terse that it omits useful context rather than being padded.

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 3-parameter creation tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers the basics. It falls short on collision/overwrite behavior and prerequisites, which matter for a tool that writes to a vault.

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 all three parameters (path, content, filename) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, defaults, or constraint detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a new note') plus the target system (Obsidian vault). It is distinguishable from destroy/read siblings like delete_note and read_note, though it never names the closest alternative, update_note, explicitly.

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 versus update_note or the various read/list/search tools. The implicit 'use to create, not modify' inference is left entirely to the agent.

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