enquire-mcp

Generate an obsidian:// URI for hand-off to the desktop app

obsidian_open_in_ui

Read-onlyIdempotent

Generates an Obsidian URI to open a vault note in the desktop app, optionally in a new pane.

Instructions

Returns an obsidian://open?vault=<vault>&file=<path> URI for hand-off to the running Obsidian desktop app. No filesystem or network side effect — the URI emission lets the agent say 'open this in Obsidian' without enquire-mcp coordinating with the running app. Optional new_pane=true opens the note in a split. Read-only.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "obsidian_open_in_ui"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`path`	No	Vault-relative path of the note
`title`	No	Note title (alternative to `path`)
`new_pane`	No	Append `&newpane=true` so Obsidian opens the note in a split

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv3.10.1Jun 22, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by stating no filesystem or network side effects and explaining the URI emission mechanism. It does not contradict annotations, which already declare readOnly and idempotent hints.

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 three sentences, to the point, and front-loaded with the core purpose. No unnecessary words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers the main output, side effects, and optional parameter behavior. Missing details like vault parameter handling or path/title exclusivity are minor gaps for a simple tool without output schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The main description mentions path and new_pane but not title, and does not explain the relationship between path and title (e.g., exclusivity, fallback). Thus, it adds minimal value over 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 clearly states it returns an obsidian://open URI for opening notes in the Obsidian desktop app. It is specific about the action and resource, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, such as other open or launch tools, though the purpose is distinguishable.

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?

The description implies usage for handing off to the desktop app without coordination, providing context. It does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but the context is clear enough for the agent.

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