Obsidian MCP (pgvector + Ollama, self-hosted)

list_notes

Find notes in an Obsidian vault folder by tags or frontmatter, sorted by last modified. Uses the index for quick results, with up to 5-minute lag.

Instructions

List notes in a vault folder, sorted by most recently modified.

Results come from the index, so a note that exists on disk but has not yet been picked up by the indexer will not appear (lag is bounded by the index interval, typically up to 5 minutes).

Args: folder: Vault-relative folder path (e.g. "Cards/", "Projects/"). Empty for vault root. limit: Maximum number of results (default 50). tags: Optional list of tag names; only notes carrying ALL listed tags match (e.g. ["idea"]). 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
```
Addedv0.7.0Aug 19, 2026
Removedv0.5.4Jul 21, 2026
First observedMay 17, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: results come from an index with bounded lag, notes may be missing until indexed, sorting is by most recent modification, tag matching requires ALL tags, and frontmatter matching is strict on type. This goes well beyond a generic 'list' operation.

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 main behavior is front-loaded in one sentence, the index caveat earns its place, and the Args section is tightly formatted without fluff. Every sentence adds needed information.

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?

For a read-only listing tool with four parameters and an output schema, the description is complete: it explains index staleness, filter semantics, defaults, and folder-root behavior, while return values are covered by the output schema.

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. Each parameter gets a human-readable explanation, default, and example: folder with empty-for-root semantics, limit with maximum/default, tags with ALL-match semantics, and frontmatter with strict type matching.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource — 'List notes in a vault folder' — and adds sorting behavior, distinguishing it from file-listing siblings like list_files and search siblings like keyword_search. The folder scope and filter approach make the tool's job unmistakable.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It clearly describes when to use the tool: to list notes in a folder or vault root, with optional tag/frontmatter filters. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, so it misses the top tier, but the context is unambiguous.

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