obsidian-local-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Update Note Frontmatter

update_note_frontmatter

Merge new metadata into a note's existing frontmatter while leaving the body untouched; created stays, updated bumps automatically.

Instructions

Merge updates into a note's existing frontmatter, leaving the body untouched. created is preserved; updated is bumped automatically.

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": {
      "relative_path": "<relative_path>",
      "updates": "<updates>"
    },
    "name": "update_note_frontmatter"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`vault`	No
`updates`	Yes
`relative_path`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 11, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose useful side effects: body untouched, `created` preserved, `updated` bumped automatically. However it omits error behavior (e.g. what happens if the note/path doesn't exist) and any permission or creation semantics for a mutation 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?

Two tight sentences, zero waste, with the core merge behavior and side effects front-loaded.

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 values need no explanation, and the description covers the primary merge semantics. But for a mutation tool with no annotations and a fully undocumented `vault` param, the missing error/edge-case behavior leaves it only adequate.

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 coverage is 0% across 3 parameters. The description explains `updates` (merged into frontmatter) and implies `relative_path` identifies the note, but the `vault` parameter is entirely undocumented, leaving a real gap the description should have compensated for.

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+resource: merging `updates` into a note's existing frontmatter. The clause 'leaving the body untouched' implicitly distinguishes it from write_note and upsert_node, though no sibling is named directly.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives are given. An agent must infer that this is the tool for frontmatter-only edits versus write_note for full-body writes; the routing is left unstated.

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