Obsidian Diary MCP Server

by madebygps

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose with no overlap: create_diary_template generates templates, list_recent_entries lists entries, read_diary_entry reads content, save_diary_entry saves new entries, and update_entry_backlinks updates backlinks. The descriptions reinforce these distinct functions, making misselection unlikely.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with clear, descriptive names (e.g., create_diary_template, list_recent_entries). There are no deviations in naming style, making the set predictable and easy to understand at a glance.
Tool Count5/5
With 5 tools, this server is well-scoped for a diary management system. Each tool serves a specific, necessary function (CRUD operations and backlink management) without redundancy, making the count appropriate for the domain's scope.
Completeness4/5
The toolset covers core diary operations well: create (via save_diary_entry), read (read_diary_entry), list (list_recent_entries), and update (update_entry_backlinks), plus template creation. A minor gap is the lack of a delete tool, but agents can work around this, and the surface supports essential workflows without dead ends.
Average 3.3/5 across 5 of 5 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

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 a read operation but doesn't mention error handling (e.g., what happens if the entry doesn't exist), authentication needs, rate limits, or other behavioral traits. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first. The Args and Returns sections are structured clearly, though the formatting could be more integrated. There's minimal waste, earning a high score.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks behavioral context (e.g., error cases) and usage guidelines, which are important for completeness despite the simple schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaningful context beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It specifies that the 'date' parameter should be in 'YYYY-MM-DD format', clarifying the expected syntax. With only one parameter, this is sufficient for a high score, though it doesn't cover edge cases like invalid dates.
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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('an existing diary entry'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_recent_entries' or 'save_diary_entry', which prevents a perfect score.
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 like 'list_recent_entries' or 'save_diary_entry'. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., entry must exist) or exclusions, leaving usage decisions ambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 the tool updates backlinks based on content, implying a mutation operation, but fails to address critical aspects such as required permissions, whether changes are reversible, or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
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 well-structured and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first, followed by clear sections for 'Args' and 'Returns.' Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (a mutation with no annotations), the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and parameter semantics adequately, and the presence of an output schema means return values need not be detailed. However, it lacks usage guidelines and sufficient behavioral transparency, leaving gaps for an AI agent to fully understand when and how to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful context: the 'date' parameter is explained as 'Date of the entry in YYYY-MM-DD format,' which clarifies its purpose beyond the bare schema. Since there is only one parameter, this is sufficient to earn a high score, though not a 5 due to lack of deeper semantic details (e.g., timezone handling).
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 tool's purpose: 'Update the backlinks for an existing diary entry based on its current content.' It specifies the verb ('Update'), resource ('backlinks'), and scope ('existing diary entry'), but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'save_diary_entry' or 'read_diary_entry', which prevents a score of 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., entry must exist), exclusions, or compare it to siblings like 'save_diary_entry' (which might handle content updates). This lack of contextual direction limits its utility for an AI agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 the tool creates a template, implying a write operation, but doesn't mention permissions, side effects, or error handling. The mention of 'based on recent entries' hints at data access, but lacks details on how this influences the template generation.
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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by clear sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured for quick understanding.
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?
Given the tool has an output schema (covering return values), no annotations, and low schema coverage, the description does a good job by explaining the parameter and return purpose. However, as a creation tool with no behavioral annotations, it could benefit from more context on permissions or side effects to be fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains the 'date' parameter's purpose, format (YYYY-MM-DD), and default behavior (uses today's date if not provided), compensating well for the schema's lack of documentation.
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 'Create' and resource 'new diary entry template', specifying it includes 'reflection prompts based on recent entries'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'save_diary_entry' or 'update_entry_backlinks', which might also involve diary entry creation or modification.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'save_diary_entry' or 'update_entry_backlinks'. The description mentions 'based on recent entries', but doesn't specify prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists entries and returns dates, but lacks details on permissions needed, rate limits, pagination (beyond the 'count' parameter), error handling, or whether it's read-only (implied by 'list' but not explicit). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
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 appropriately sized and front-loaded. The first sentence states the core purpose clearly. The 'Args' and 'Returns' sections are structured efficiently, with each sentence adding value—no wasted words. It's concise without being under-specified.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity (one optional parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return value details), the description is mostly complete. It covers the purpose, parameter semantics, and return type. However, it lacks behavioral context (e.g., permissions, errors), which is a minor gap since annotations are absent and the tool is simple.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaningful context beyond the input schema. The schema only defines 'count' as an integer with a default of 10, with 0% description coverage. The description explains that 'count' is the 'Number of recent entries to list (default: 10)', clarifying its purpose and default value. Since there's only one parameter and schema coverage is low, this compensates well.
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 tool's purpose: 'List recent diary entries.' It specifies the verb ('list') and resource ('diary entries'), and the 'recent' qualifier distinguishes it from siblings like 'read_diary_entry' (which reads a specific entry) and 'save_diary_entry' (which creates/updates). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'create_diary_template' or 'update_entry_backlinks', which are less similar.
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 siblings like 'read_diary_entry' for accessing specific entries or 'save_diary_entry' for creating new ones. There's no context on prerequisites, such as whether entries must exist first, or exclusions, like when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool saves entries and automatically adds backlinks, which are behavioral traits. However, it doesn't mention permission requirements, whether it overwrites existing entries, rate limits, or error conditions.
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 appropriately sized with clear sections (purpose, args, returns). The first sentence states the core functionality, and subsequent sections provide necessary details. However, the 'Args' and 'Returns' headings could be more integrated with the flow.
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?
Given 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage and an output schema exists, the description provides adequate context. It explains the tool's purpose, parameter formats, and return value expectations. The output schema means the description doesn't need to detail return structure, but it could better address behavioral aspects given no annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
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. It provides format guidance for the date parameter ('YYYY-MM-DD format') and clarifies that 'content' is 'The diary entry content', adding meaningful context beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't explain constraints like content length or date validation.
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 'Save' and resource 'diary entry', and adds 'automatically add relevant backlinks' which distinguishes it from basic creation tools. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_diary_template' or 'update_entry_backlinks'.
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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_diary_template' or 'update_entry_backlinks'. The description only states what the tool does, not when it's appropriate compared to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![obsidian-diary-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/madebygps/obsidian-diary-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/madebygps/obsidian-diary-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![obsidian-diary-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/madebygps/obsidian-diary-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/madebygps/obsidian-diary-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/madebygps/obsidian-diary-mcp'

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