obsidian-modified-mcp-server

by marwansaab

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Local

complex_search

Search Obsidian vaults with JsonLogic queries, supporting glob and regexp pattern matching for flexible search.

Instructions

Search using JsonLogic query. Supports glob and regexp operators for pattern matching.

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": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "complex_search"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`query`	Yes	JsonLogic query object. Example: {"glob": ["*.md", {"var": "path"}]}
`vaultId`	No	Optional vault ID (defaults to configured default vault).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.6.0Jul 31, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It indicates a read operation ('Search') and mentions operator support, but does not describe the return format, potential performance concerns, or search scope (e.g., file names vs. content).

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the main action and followed by a key feature. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or fluff.

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?

For a tool with nested JsonLogic query objects and no output schema, the description is somewhat minimal. It adequately explains purpose and operator capabilities, but lacks information about return values or when to prefer it over simpler search tools, leaving some gap for effective use.

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 already covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explicitly mentioning regexp support, complementing the schema's glob example and enriching the query parameter semantics.

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 action ('Search') and the specific query mechanism (JsonLogic), distinguishing it from sibling search tools by mentioning glob and regexp operators. However, it doesn't explicitly state what is being searched (e.g., 'files in vault'), which would make it fully explicit.

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 'search', 'pattern_search', or 'semantic_search'. It implies usage through the name and mentions supported operators, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context.

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