Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Obsidian Everywhere

Obsidian Everywhere

by junnnnnw00
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Validate Obsidian Base

validate_base
Read-onlyIdempotent

Validate YAML and structural fields in .base files, reporting which checks need a live Obsidian app for formula semantics and rendering.

Instructions

Statically validate YAML and core structural fields in a .base file or fenced base block. Reports the limit that formula semantics and rendering require a live Obsidian app.

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": "validate_base"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathNoVault-relative .base or Markdown path.
contentNoBase YAML or Markdown containing fenced base blocks; overrides path.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate safety, idempotency, and non-destructiveness. The description adds value by specifying validation scope and a constraint (requires live Obsidian for formula semantics).

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?

Two concise sentences: first states primary function, second adds an important caveat. No unnecessary words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the simple parameter set and no output schema, the description provides sufficient detail about what is validated and a key limitation. Could mention the scope of 'core structural fields' but overall adequate.

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 coverage is 100% and descriptions are clear. The tool description does not add extra parameter-level meaning beyond schema documentation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action (validate) and the resource (.base file or fenced base block), making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives; the limitation mention is helpful but does not provide 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

Other Tools