Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
HomarUScc

HomarUScc

by kcdjmaxx
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

obsidian_search

Search your Obsidian vault using Obsidian's built-in search syntax to locate notes and content directly from Claude Code.

Instructions

Search the vault using Obsidian's built-in search

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": "obsidian_search"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryYesSearch query (Obsidian search syntax)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.5.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description's minimal text ('Search the vault using Obsidian's built-in search') does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, side effects, return format, or any limitations. For an unannotated tool, this is insufficient.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core action 'Search the vault' and adds one clarifying detail ('using Obsidian's built-in search'). No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one well-documented parameter, no output schema), the description is somewhat adequate but misses expected context such as what the search returns (file paths? snippets?) and how it differs from other search tools. It feels incomplete for an agent selecting among many search-related siblings.

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?

The schema fully describes the single parameter 'query' with 'Search query (Obsidian search syntax),' giving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional semantic details, so the baseline of 3 is 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Search the vault using Obsidian's built-in search'—a specific verb and resource. While it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like vault_search, the mention of 'Obsidian's built-in search' hints at a specific implementation.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as vault_search, memory_search, or docs_search. The description lacks any context about appropriate use cases or exclusions.

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