Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
obsidian-mcp

obsidian-mcp

by laurentiudanielgi-coder
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

List notes

list_notes
Read-only

List markdown notes in an Obsidian vault or subfolder and return vault-relative paths to read them.

Instructions

List markdown notes in the vault (or a subfolder), newest info included. Returns vault-relative paths — use those in read_note.

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": "list_notes"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
folderNoOptional subfolder to list, vault-relative (e.g. 'projects')

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.5.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With readOnlyHint already declaring safety, the description adds behavioral context by specifying the return contract: vault-relative paths to be used with read_note. It also mentions 'newest info included', though this phrase is somewhat ambiguous; overall it goes beyond the annotation.

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?

The description is short and front-loads the main action and scope, then provides a useful return-value pointer. The phrase 'newest info included' is slightly unclear and could be tightened, but there is no wasted verbiage.

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?

For a simple read-only list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the key facts: what is listed, where it can be scoped, what is returned, and how to use the result. It could be more precise about ordering/recursion, but it is complete enough for correct invocation.

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 single parameter 'folder' is already fully documented in the schema as optional and vault-relative, and the description only echoes this with 'or a subfolder'. It adds no new semantic detail about folder formatting or default behavior.

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 states a specific action ('List markdown notes') and a clear scope ('vault or a subfolder'), and it names what the caller receives ('vault-relative paths'). It does not explicitly contrast itself with search_notes, but the verb and resource are concrete enough to identify the tool's role.

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?

It gives context for listing by optional subfolder and tells the caller to feed returned paths into read_note. However, it does not say when to prefer list_notes over search_notes or whether listing is recursive, so the when-to-use guidance is incomplete.

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