Skip to main content
Glama
maxkuminov

Obsidian MCP (pgvector + Ollama, self-hosted)

by maxkuminov

Request download link

request_download

Creates a short-lived secret link for a person to preview and save a vault file such as a PDF, image, or archive, avoiding context-heavy reads. The link expires and breaks if the file changes.

Instructions

Get a short-lived link a person can use to save a vault file. Peer to read_file, which returns the bytes to you — use this one when the file is for the human, not for you.

Handy for anything read_file would waste context on or cannot render: a PDF, a large image, an archive. Reading works with a read-only key.

The token lives in the URL's # fragment, so it never reaches an access log. Treat the whole URL as a secret — whoever holds it can read that one file until it expires. Never put it in a query string.

The link is bound to the file as it is now: if it is edited or replaced, the link stops working rather than serving different content than you described. Unlike an upload link it can be used more than once, so the person can preview and then save.

From a shell: `curl -H "Authorization: Bearer " -o

Args: path: Vault-relative path of the file to share. expires_in: Seconds until the link dies. Clamped to 60–3600; defaults to TRANSFER_TOKEN_TTL_SECONDS (600). A link can never outlive the credential you are calling with, so the deadline in the result may be earlier than you asked for — it says so when that happens.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYes
expires_inNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.8.2
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
  2. Addedv0.7.0

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Rich disclosure beyond annotations: token lives in the URL fragment so it avoids access logs, the whole URL is a secret, the link is bound to the file's current state (breaks on edit rather than serving different content), it is reusable unlike an upload link, and expiry is clamped and may be earlier than the credential's deadline. Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false) are consistent with a link-creating, non-destructive, non-idempotent operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with purpose and the read_file contrast, then security and expiry notes. Every section is useful, though the curl example and multiple prose paragraphs make it longer than strictly minimal.

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 link-generation tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, security handling, expiry behavior, and file-binding semantics thoroughly. An agent has everything needed to call it and to warn the user appropriately.

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 carry parameter meaning, and it does: path is a vault-relative path of the file to share, and expires_in is seconds clamped to 60–3600, defaulting to TRANSFER_TOKEN_TTL_SECONDS (600), with the caveat that the result deadline may be earlier.

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 ('Get a short-lived link ... to save a vault file') and explicitly differentiates from the sibling read_file, contrasting 'returns the bytes to you' vs 'for the human'.

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?

Names the alternative (read_file) and the exact condition for choosing this one: when the file is for the human, or when read_file would waste context or cannot render (PDF, large image, archive). Clear when-to-use routing.

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