Obsidian MCP (pgvector + Ollama, self-hosted)

list_files

List vault files and folders with sizes and modification times, filter by glob pattern, and descend recursively to locate non-markdown files before reading them.

Instructions

Browse the vault filesystem (ls-style), including non-markdown files. Peer to list_notes, which lists indexed markdown only; list_files reads the filesystem directly and reports sizes so you can gauge a binary before read_file.

By default lists the immediate children of folder — subdirectories and files, each file with size and modification time. pattern is a glob that filters file entries (e.g. "*.pdf"); recursive=True descends into subfolders and returns matching files. Anything with a path component starting with . is hidden — dot-directories (.obsidian, .git, .trash, …) and dot-files — and a folder with such a component is rejected.

At most limit entries are returned (default 200, hard cap 1000); the response indicates when the listing was truncated.

Args: folder: Vault-relative folder (default "." = vault root). pattern: Glob applied to file names (default "*"). recursive: If True, descend into subfolders. Off by default. limit: Maximum entries to return (default 200, hard cap 1000).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`limit`	No
`folder`	No	.
`pattern`	No	*
`recursive`	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
```
Addedv0.4.0Jun 26, 2026

TDQS

A5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses hidden dot-file/dot-directory filtering, rejection of dot-containing folder paths, default limit and hard cap, truncation signaling, and the fact that files are reported with size and modification time. This is thorough behavioral disclosure.

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 information-dense and well-organized, with a high-level overview followed by a structured Args list. Every sentence adds meaningful guidance about behavior, defaults, or limitations; there is no filler or repetition of schema defaults beyond what is necessary.

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 moderate complexity, the description is complete: it covers defaults, recursion, glob filtering, hidden-file behavior, truncation, and parameter semantics. The presence of an output schema means return structure need not be repeated, and the description provides everything an agent needs to call the tool correctly.

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 compensate. It explains all four parameters (folder, pattern, recursive, limit) with defaults, types, and behavioral effects. This fully covers what the schema leaves ambiguous.

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 states a specific verb ('Browse the vault filesystem') and resource ('filesystem'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from list_notes by noting it includes non-markdown files and reads the filesystem directly. An agent can immediately tell which tool to select.

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?

The description explicitly names the sibling tool list_notes as the alternative for indexed markdown only, and explains when list_files should be preferred (e.g., gauging a binary before read_file). It also covers the default non-recursive behavior and when recursive=True is appropriate, giving clear context for tool selection.

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