Obsidian MCP (pgvector + Ollama, self-hosted)

import_from_url

Fetch a public HTTPS file directly into your Obsidian vault, returning path, size, SHA-256, MIME type, and final URL after redirects. Enforces size limits and overwrite protection.

Instructions

Fetch a file from a public https URL straight into the vault. Requires write permission — a readwrite API key, or an OAuth token carrying the readwrite scope. Peer to write_file and request_upload — use this one when the bytes are already somewhere public.

The server does the fetching, so nothing passes through your context: a 20 MB PDF costs one tool call. Returns the path, size, sha256, MIME type and the final URL after any redirects.

Only genuinely public addresses. This server sits on a private network next to a database and other services, so the fetch is restricted: https only — plain http is refused unless the operator has set IMPORT_ALLOW_HTTP=true — no credentials in the URL, no private/loopback/link-local/metadata addresses in any spelling, and the same rules re-checked at every redirect. A refusal names the rule that was violated — that is information about the URL, not a hint to work around it. Rewriting the URL to evade the check is never the right next step; ask the user for a public link instead.

Size-capped at MAX_FILE_WRITE_BYTES, with one 30-second deadline for the whole fetch. No-clobber unless overwrite=True. Nothing is written unless the whole body arrives intact.

This tool shares the transfer tools' preflight, so it also refuses when the server has no public origin configured (MCP_HOSTNAME or BASE_URL), even though it mints no link — that is an operator setting, not something to work around.

Args: url: Public https URL of the file. path: Vault-relative destination (e.g. "Attachments/paper.pdf"). overwrite: If True, allow replacing an existing file at path.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes
`path`	Yes
`overwrite`	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
```
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 delivers thoroughly: requires readwrite permission, server-side fetching (no context load), returns specific fields, enforces https and address restrictions, rechecks at redirects, size cap, deadline, no-clobber default, atomic write, and preflight refusal. It even clarifies that refusal messages are informational, not workaround hints. This is exemplary transparency.

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?

Although long, every sentence carries critical security or usage information. The structure front-loads purpose, then usage, then constraints, then args. There is no fluff; the density is justified by the tool's security sensitivity. It is well-organized and scannable.

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?

The description is complete for a complex tool: it covers return values (path, size, sha256, MIME, final URL), error handling (refusals, redirect rules), prerequisites (permissions, public origin), and constraints (size, deadline, no-clobber). The output schema exists, but the description still explains the returned fields. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides an 'Args' section explaining each parameter: url (public https URL), path (vault-relative destination with example), and overwrite (allow replacing). This adds meaning well beyond the bare schema, giving agents everything needed to fill them correctly.

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 uses a specific verb (fetch) and resource (file from URL into vault), and explicitly distinguishes from siblings by naming write_file and request_upload and stating when to use this one ('when the bytes are already somewhere public'). This leaves no ambiguity about the tool's role.

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool versus alternatives ('Peer to write_file and request_upload — use this one when the bytes are already somewhere public'). It also provides concrete usage conditions: public https only, no credentials, size caps, deadline, and preflight refusal. These conditions guide correct invocation.

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