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

obsidian-mcp-server

by indie-geeker
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

update_note

Modify an existing Obsidian note by replacing or appending content at a specified file path, enabling AI-driven note updates.

Instructions

Update an existing note's content

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": {
      "filepath": "<filepath>",
      "content": "<content>"
    },
    "name": "update_note"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
appendNoIf true, append to existing content instead of replacing
contentYesNew content for the note
filepathYesPath to the note file

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 and provides almost nothing: no mention that content is replaced by default (a destructive overwrite partially implied only by the append parameter's schema text), no behavior for a missing file, no permission or error semantics. This is a mutation tool, so the silence on overwrite risk is a real gap.

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 or redundancy. It is efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification for a mutating tool.

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?

For a 3-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should disclose overwrite behavior, error cases, and success semantics. Almost none of that is present, leaving the agent to rely solely on the input 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 all three parameters (filepath, content, append) are already documented in the schema, including the append-vs-replace semantics. The description adds no meaning beyond 'content', so 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?

Specific verb+resource ('Update an existing note's content') makes the operation immediately identifiable. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like create_note or delete_note beyond the obvious verb difference.

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 versus create_note (new note) or read_note, nor any prerequisites such as the target file existing. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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