Skip to main content
Glama
libra850
by libra850

update_note

Modify existing note content in Obsidian vaults by specifying the file path and new text, enabling content updates and revisions.

Instructions

Obsidianノートの内容を更新します

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
notePathYesノートのパス(vault相対パス)
contentYes新しいノートの内容

Implementation Reference

  • Core handler function that validates the note path and writes the new content to the Obsidian vault file.
    async updateNote(notePath: string, content: string): Promise<string> {
      if (!FileUtils.validatePath(this.config.vaultPath, notePath)) {
        throw new Error('無効なファイルパスです');
      }
    
      const fullPath = path.join(this.config.vaultPath, notePath);
      await fs.writeFile(fullPath, content, 'utf-8');
    
      return `ノート '${notePath}' を更新しました`;
  • Input schema defining parameters: notePath (string, vault-relative path) and content (string).
    inputSchema: {
      type: 'object',
      properties: {
        notePath: {
          type: 'string',
          description: 'ノートのパス(vault相対パス)',
        },
        content: {
          type: 'string',
          description: '新しいノートの内容',
        },
      },
      required: ['notePath', 'content'],
  • src/server.ts:102-119 (registration)
    Tool registration in the listTools response, including name, description, and input schema.
    {
      name: 'update_note',
      description: 'Obsidianノートの内容を更新します',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          notePath: {
            type: 'string',
            description: 'ノートのパス(vault相対パス)',
          },
          content: {
            type: 'string',
            description: '新しいノートの内容',
          },
        },
        required: ['notePath', 'content'],
      },
    },
  • Dispatch handler in the CallToolRequest that extracts arguments and calls the ObsidianHandler.updateNote method.
    case 'update_note':
      const updateResult = await this.obsidianHandler.updateNote(
        args.notePath as string,
        args.content as string
      );
      return {
        content: [{ type: 'text', text: updateResult }],
      };
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is an update operation, implying mutation, but doesn't describe what happens (e.g., overwrites entire content, merges, requires specific permissions, whether changes are reversible, or error conditions). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, efficient sentence in Japanese that directly states the tool's function. It's appropriately sized with zero wasted words and front-loaded the core action, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given this is a mutation tool (update operation) with no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete behavioral disclosure, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover what the tool returns, error handling, or important behavioral traits like whether it overwrites or appends content. For a tool that modifies data, more context is needed.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('notePath' and 'content') with descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('更新します' - updates) and resource ('Obsidianノートの内容' - Obsidian note content), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'read_note' (read operation) and 'create_note_from_template' (creation operation), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential similar update operations that might exist in other contexts.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., note must exist), when not to use it, or how it differs from other tools like 'rename_tag' or 'link_notes' that might also modify notes. Usage context is implied but not explicitly stated.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/libra850/obsidian-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server