obsidian-modified-mcp-server

by marwansaab

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Local

search

Find and retrieve keyword matches across all files in an Obsidian vault, with optional surrounding context for clarity.

Instructions

Performs a keyword search across all files in the vault.

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": "search"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`query`	Yes	The search query.
`vaultId`	No	Optional vault ID (defaults to configured default vault).
`contextLength`	No	Number of characters of context around each match (default: 100).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.6.0Jul 31, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

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 behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and scope, but gives no information about whether the operation is read-only, what the return format looks like, performance characteristics, or any potential side effects.

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, concise sentence that conveys the essential purpose without redundancy. It is appropriately front-loaded and contains no filler.

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 the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description should explain more about what the tool returns and any relevant limitations. It lacks usage guidance and result semantics, making it incomplete for a tool with several close siblings.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all three parameters, so the description does not need to add much. It does add the context of 'across all files' and 'keyword' which aligns with the schema, but no additional parameter-level detail is necessary.

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 specifies a clear action ('keyword search') and scope ('all files in the vault'), making the tool's basic function evident. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling search tools like complex_search, pattern_search, or semantic_search, though 'keyword' implies a simple text query.

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. The description does not mention use cases, prerequisites, or why a user might choose this over complex_search or semantic_search.

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