Obsidian MCP (pgvector + Ollama, self-hosted)

get_recent

Retrieve recently modified notes from an Obsidian vault, with optional filtering by folder, tags, or frontmatter values to quickly access notes meeting specific criteria.

Instructions

Get recently modified notes.

Args: limit: Number of recent notes to return (default 20). folder: Optional folder prefix to filter (e.g. "Projects/"). tags: Optional list of tag names; only notes carrying ALL listed tags match (e.g. ["meeting"]). frontmatter: Optional dict of frontmatter key/value pairs; strict type match (e.g. {"status": "active"}).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`tags`	No
`limit`	No
`folder`	No
`frontmatter`	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
```
First observedMay 17, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not state that the tool is read-only, whether it sorts results, or any side effects or limitations. Only parameter constraints like 'strict type match' are mentioned.

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 two-part docstring: a one-line summary followed by an ordered parameter list. Every sentence adds value, and the parameter details are formatted for quick scanning. No wasted words.

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 read tool with four optional parameters, the description covers all inputs and the output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. However, it lacks any use-case context or sibling differentiation, which matters given the large toolset. It's adequate but not complete.

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%, so the description must fully explain parameters. It does so with defaults, types, and examples for limit, folder, tags, and frontmatter, and clarifies important semantics like ALL-tag matching and strict type matching—information not present in the schema.

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 'Get recently modified notes' states a clear verb and resource. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like list_notes by the 'recently modified' time-based criterion, but does not explicitly compare or name any alternative.

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 given for when to use this tool versus the many siblings (keyword_search, semantic_search, list_notes). The description only explains parameters, not the use cases or exclusions.

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