obsidian-modified-mcp-server
Related Servers
Alternatives to obsidian-modified-mcp-server
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- FlicenseBqualityDmaintenanceA lightweight MCP server for intelligent, non-invasive analysis of Obsidian vaults.4-
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityAmaintenanceMCP server for Obsidian that exposes tools for reading/writing notes, managing frontmatter and tags, querying Tasks, semantic search, and interacting with Obsidian Bases, with shared local caching and support for various runtime modes.39Apache 2.0
- AlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceLocal-first MCP server for working with an Obsidian vault. No API key required1714MIT
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceA standalone Node MCP server that provides semantic search, knowledge graph, and vault editing over an Obsidian vault. It runs locally as a single stdio process without requiring an Obsidian plugin for core functionality.1880 npm10Apache 2.0
- AlicenseBqualityCmaintenanceHeadless semantic MCP server for Obsidian, Logseq, Dendron, Foam, and any markdown folder. Features built-in hybrid semantic search, surgical AST editing, template scaffolding, zero-config local embeddings, and workflow tracking.556 npm11MIT
- AlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceThe most feature-complete MCP server for Obsidian vaults. 23 tools and 3 resources for search, read, write, tags, link analysis, graph traversal, and canvas support.4148 npm30MIT
TDQS
Scored across 32 tools
Each tool targets a distinct resource and operation: file reading/writing, search with different query types, vault graph analysis, commands, and periodic notes. The descriptions clearly differentiate similar-looking tools like search, complex_search, pattern_search, and semantic_search.
Tool names follow a consistent lowercase snake_case convention with a verb-noun structure (put_content, get_file_contents, delete_file, list_tags). Even compound names like batch_get_file_contents and find_and_replace fit the pattern, and search variants share a common suffix.
With 32 tools, the server exceeds the typical well-scoped range (3-15) and enters the 'too many' category (25+). While each tool is distinct, the sheer number could overwhelm agents, and some tools could be parameterized to reduce count.
The surface covers CRUD, search (keyword, regex, semantic, JsonLogic), graph analysis, periodic notes, tags, and command execution. Minor gaps include rename/move operations and explicit folder creation, but the core workflows are well covered.