obsidian-local-mcp

by lasheralberto

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

Search Vault

search_vault

Search all notes by substring across IDs and bodies, returning a short snippet per hit to locate relevant knowledge.

Instructions

Substring search over every note's id/body, with a short snippet per hit.

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_vault"
  }
}

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

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It reveals matching semantics (substring) and return shape (snippets), but says nothing about safety, pagination across the limit, scope defaults when vault is null, or whether it touches the graph. This is thin for a no-annotation tool.

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?

A single tight sentence that front-loads the operation and appends the return shape. Nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return value details aren't required. But with 0% parameter coverage and no annotations, the description should clarify scoping and limit behavior; it leaves key invocation details to inference.

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% across three parameters. The description mentions id/body as search surface but doesn't explain query syntax, what limit controls, or what vault=null means (default scope). The agent gets no compensating meaning for the undocumented parameters.

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 (substring search) and resource scope (every note's id/body), and describes the result shape (short snippet per hit). It doesn't distinguish itself from the very similar sibling search_nodes, leaving the agent to guess which search target applies.

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 tool versus search_nodes, retrieve_context, or list_notes. The description gives no conditions, exclusions, or alternatives despite a crowded sibling namespace.

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