obsidian-local-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Search Nodes

search_nodes

Full-text search across node IDs, labels, paths, and curated notes. If the query matches a valid node ID, that exact node is returned first.

Instructions

Full-text search over node id/label/path/curated-note body. If query is itself a valid node id, that exact node is included first.

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_nodes"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`query`	Yes
`vault`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 11, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the non-obvious trait that a valid node-id query short-circuits to the exact node first, but says nothing about result ordering/ranking, permissions, or interaction with the limit default.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core behavior front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though arguably too terse given the undocumented parameters.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, but with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no sibling differentiation, the definition leaves an agent guessing about `limit`/`vault` semantics and when to prefer this over search_vault.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for all three parameters. It clarifies that `query` is matched as full text across several fields, but gives no meaning at all for `limit` or `vault` (a nullable string targeting a vault), leaving real gaps.

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?

States a specific verb ('Full-text search') and enumerates the searched fields (node id/label/path/curated-note body), so the agent knows exactly what is matched. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like search_vault or retrieve_context, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus the many sibling search tools (search_vault, retrieve_context, get_node). The note about exact-id matching is a behavioral trait, not a when-to-use rule, and no exclusions or prerequisites are given.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.