delete_template
Remove a template from your Obsidian knowledge base by specifying its name to maintain organized note structures.
Instructions
Delete a template
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Template name to delete |
Remove a template from your Obsidian knowledge base by specifying its name to maintain organized note structures.
Delete a template
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Template name to delete |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, it doesn't specify whether deletion is permanent/reversible, what permissions are required, or what happens to associated data. This is inadequate for a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just three words, front-loading the essential action and resource. There's zero wasted language, making it efficient for quick comprehension.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks critical context about the mutation's impact, success/failure behavior, or return values, leaving significant gaps for agent decision-making.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'name' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and the resource ('a template'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate this from sibling tools like 'delete_note' or 'create_template' beyond the obvious resource difference, missing explicit sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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 prerequisites (e.g., template must exist), exclusions, or comparisons to related tools like 'create_template' or 'apply_template', leaving usage context entirely implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/jianruidutong/obsidian-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server