Obsidian MCP (pgvector + Ollama, self-hosted)

delete_file

Delete non-markdown files from your Obsidian vault, with soft delete to .trash or permanent removal. Protects against accidental loss while keeping notes indexed.

Instructions

Delete a non-markdown file from the vault. Requires write permission — a readwrite API key, or an OAuth token carrying the readwrite scope. Peer to delete_note, which stays markdown-only.

By default this is a soft delete: the file moves to .trash/<YYYYMMDD-HHMMSS>-<basename>-<8 hex> inside the vault, keeping a copy the user can recover. Two files with the same name deleted in the same second both survive — the trash never clobbers.

With permanent=True the file is unlinked outright and this server has no recovery path; the user's backups are the only rollback.

Refuses markdown files (use delete_note, which understands the index and backlinks), directories, and symlinks. Non-markdown files are not indexed, so search and embeddings are unaffected either way.

Optional expected_hash binds the whole raw file in either mode. Use the canonical sha256:<64 lowercase hex> from read_file's base64 header, read_file(hash_only=True), or a write success. Malformed hashes refuse before path checks; unavailable, required and stale preconditions refuse before any trash entry or unlink. The deployment may require a hash. This checks the caller-read-to-call window; a later concurrent replacement remains possible, so it is not an atomic filesystem compare-and-delete. A successful delete reports no content hash.

Args: path: Vault-relative path to the file. permanent: If True, unlink instead of moving to .trash/. expected_hash: Optional whole-file raw-byte digest of the incumbent.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes
`permanent`	No
`expected_hash`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.8.2Sep 24, 2026
- addedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +false
```

Changed1 schema field changedv0.8.1Sep 16, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / expected_hash

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Expected Hash"
+}

Addedv0.7.0Aug 19, 2026

TDQS

A5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses soft-delete vs. permanent unlink, trash naming and collision behavior, no-recovery path, refusal cases, hash precondition ordering, non-atomicity, and lack of a content hash in success responses. This is far beyond what a bare 'Delete a file' would offer.

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?

Long but tightly structured: each paragraph or sentence adds a distinct fact about permission, trash behavior, permanent mode, refusals, or hashing. The key semantics are front-loaded, and the Args section cleanly summarizes the parameters.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity and the total absence of annotations, the description covers permissions, error precedence, edge cases, non-atomicity, recovery expectations, and parameter semantics. The presence of an output schema means return-value details need not be repeated, so nothing essential is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates completely. It explains path, permanent with its destructive semantics, and expected_hash including the canonical format, sources, refusal behavior, and timing guarantees. An agent can construct correct arguments using only this text.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Delete a non-markdown file from the vault') and immediately distinguishes itself from delete_note by explicitly saying delete_note is markdown-only. The refusal of markdown files, directories, and symlinks further clarifies the exact scope.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly says when to use alternatives ('Refuses markdown files (use delete_note...)' and names delete_note as the peer tool). It also states the required write permission, default soft-delete behavior, and when permanent deletion is the only appropriate choice.

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