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

obsidian-mcp-server

by indie-geeker
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

search_notes

Search Obsidian notes by content or filename, with an optional path to limit the search scope. Quickly find relevant notes in your vault.

Instructions

Search notes by content or filename

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": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "search_notes"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathNoOptional path to limit search scope
queryYesSearch query string

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
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 does not state that the operation is read-only, how matching works, whether results are paginated, or what the response contains beyond the basic search intent.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the core action and resource immediately, which is appropriate for a simple search tool.

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 tool is simple and the schema fully documents both parameters, so an agent can invoke it. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves behavioral context such as result format, matching semantics, and pagination unstated.

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 both query and path are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no extra syntax, format, or behavioral detail for those parameters, making the baseline score of 3 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 states a specific verb and resource: search notes by content or filename. It is clear enough to distinguish from read/list siblings, but it does not explicitly name or differentiate itself from alternatives like list_notes or read_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?

The phrase 'Search notes by content or filename' implies the use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternatives. An agent can infer that this is for finding notes, but the description does not route it against siblings.

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