obsidian-modified-mcp-server

by marwansaab

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Local

list_files_in_vault

List all root-level files and directories in your Obsidian vault to quickly see its structure.

Instructions

Lists all files and directories in the root of your Obsidian vault.

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_files_in_vault"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`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

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It correctly implies a read-only operation ('Lists') and non-recursive root-level scope, but it does not clarify details such as whether hidden files are included, the output format, or behavior with an invalid vaultId. It adds basic behavioral context but lacks completeness.

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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without wasting tokens.

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 simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It states what the tool does and the scope. However, without an output schema, it does not describe the return format (e.g., relative vs absolute paths), which is a minor gap. Overall, it is adequate for the tool's complexity.

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 only parameter (vaultId) is fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the description need not repeat it. The tool description does not add extra semantic detail about the parameter beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Lists') and the specific scope ('all files and directories in the root of your Obsidian vault'). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_files_in_dir (which targets a specific directory) and get_vault_structure (which implies a broader or recursive tree). The use of 'root' clarifies the non-recursive scope.

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?

The description implies usage by specifying 'root', but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. There is no phrase like 'for subdirectories, use list_files_in_dir'. The usage guidance is only inferred from the scope wording, not explicitly stated.

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