de en es ja ko ru zh

Obsidian MCP Server

Name: Obsidian MCP Server
Author: pmmvr

by pmmvr

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

Obsidian MCP 服务器

MCP（模型上下文协议）服务器使 AI 代理能够通过本地 REST API 插件在您的 Obsidian 库中执行复杂的知识发现和分析。

为什么这很重要

该服务器将您的 Obsidian 库转变为 AI 代理的强大知识库，从而实现复杂的多步骤工作流程，例如：

“从我的‘项目/计划’文件夹中检索 4 月 1 日之后创建的包含‘路线图’或‘时间线’标题的笔记，然后分析它们是否存在任何阻碍因素或依赖关系，并参考源笔记提供综合风险评估”
“查找上个月所有带有‘研究’或‘分析’标签的笔记，扫描其内容以查找未完成的部分或未解决的问题，然后与我的‘团队/专业知识’笔记进行交叉引用，以建议哪些同事可以帮助解决每个差距”
“从‘领导/季度’中获取包含‘预算’或‘员工人数’的会议记录的完整内容，分析分配给我部门的行动项目，并创建带有源注释参考的时间顺序时间表”

服务器的高级过滤、正则表达式支持和完整内容检索功能使代理能够执行手动需要花费数小时的细致知识工作。

Related MCP server: Obsidian Local REST API MCP Server

先决条件

在您的 Obsidian 库中安装Obsidian Local REST API插件
在 Obsidian 设置中配置并启用插件
记下 API URL（默认值： https://localhost:27124 ）和 API 密钥（如果已设置）

安装

来自 PyPI（推荐）

# Install from PyPI
pip install obsidian-api-mcp-server

# Or with uv
uv pip install obsidian-api-mcp-server

添加到 MCP 配置

添加到您的 MCP 客户端配置（例如，Claude Desktop）：

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "obsidian-api-mcp-server": {
      "command": "uvx",
      "args": [
        "--from",
        "obsidian-api-mcp-server>=1.0.1",
        "obsidian-api-mcp"
      ],
      "env": {
        "OBSIDIAN_API_URL": "https://localhost:27124",
        "OBSIDIAN_API_KEY": "your-api-key-here"
      }
    }
  }
}

来自源代码（开发）

# Clone the repository
git clone https://github.com/pmmvr/obsidian-api-mcp-server
cd obsidian-api-mcp-server

# Install with uv
uv pip install -e .

# Or with pip
pip install -e .

配置

为 Obsidian API 设置环境变量：

# Required: Obsidian API URL (HTTPS by default)
export OBSIDIAN_API_URL="https://localhost:27124"  # Default

# Optional: API key if you've configured authentication
export OBSIDIAN_API_KEY="your-api-key-here"

重要安全提示：避免将OBSIDIAN_API_KEY直接硬编码到脚本中或提交到版本控制中。请考虑使用.env文件（包含在项目的.gitignore中）和类似python-dotenv的库来管理 API 密钥，或者使用操作系统或 Shell 管理的环境变量。

注意：服务器默认使用 HTTPS，并禁用本地 Obsidian 实例常用的自签名证书的 SSL 证书验证。对于 HTTP 连接，请设置OBSIDIAN_API_URL="http://localhost:27123" 。

用法

运行 MCP 服务器：

obsidian-mcp

可用工具

该服务器提供了三个强大的工具：

search_vault - 具有灵活过滤器和完整内容检索的高级搜索：
- query - 跨注释内容的文本或正则表达式搜索（可选）
- query_type - 搜索类型：“text”（默认）或“regex”
- search_in_path - 将搜索限制在特定文件夹路径
- title_contains - 按注释标题中的文本过滤（字符串、数组或 JSON 字符串）
- title_match_mode - 如何匹配多个词：“any”（OR）或“all”（AND）
- tag - 按标签过滤（字符串、数组或 JSON 字符串 - 搜索前置内容和内联 #tags）
- tag_match_mode - 如何匹配多个标签：“any”（OR）或“all”（AND）
- context_length - 返回的内容量（对于完整内容，请设置得较高）
- include_content - 布尔值，用于检索所有匹配注释的完整内容
- created_since/until - 按创建日期过滤
- modified_since/until - 按修改日期过滤
- page_size - 每页结果数
- max_matches_per_file - 每个笔记的匹配限制
主要特点：
- 当未提供query时，自动返回仅过滤搜索的完整内容
- include_content=True强制对任何搜索进行完整内容检索
- 支持正则表达式模式进行复杂的文本匹配（或条件、不区分大小写的搜索等）
get_note_content - 通过路径检索特定笔记的完整内容和元数据
browse_vault_structure - 高效浏览保险库目录结构：
- path - 浏览目录（默认为保管库根目录）
- include_files - 布尔值以包含文件（默认值：False，仅为提高速度而包含文件夹）
- recursive -布尔值浏览所有嵌套目录

示例用例

基本搜索

在特定文件夹中按标题查找笔记：

search_vault(
  search_in_path="Work/Projects/",
  title_contains="meeting"
)

查找具有多个标题术语的注释（或逻辑）：

search_vault(
  title_contains=["foo", "bar", "fizz", "buzz"],
  title_match_mode="any"  # Default
)

查找具有所有标题术语（和逻辑）的注释：

search_vault(
  title_contains=["project", "2024"],
  title_match_mode="all"
)

获取所有最新笔记的完整内容：

search_vault(
  modified_since="2025-05-20",
  include_content=True
)

带上下文的文本搜索：

search_vault(
  query="API documentation",
  search_in_path="Engineering/",
  context_length=500
)

按标签搜索：
```
search_vault(
  tag="project"
)
```

正则表达式搜索 OR 条件：

search_vault(
  query="foo|bar",
  query_type="regex",
  search_in_path="Projects/"
)

正则表达式搜索分配给特定人员的任务：

search_vault(
  query="(TODO|FIXME|ACTION).*@(alice|bob)",
  query_type="regex",
  search_in_path="Work/Meetings/"
)

高级多步骤工作流程

这些示例展示了代理如何将复杂的知识发现任务链接在一起：

战略项目分析：

# Step 1: Get all project documentation
search_vault(
  search_in_path="Projects/Infrastructure/",
  title_contains=["planning", "requirements", "architecture"],
  title_match_mode="any",
  include_content=True
)

# Step 2: Find related technical discussions
search_vault(
  tag=["infrastructure", "technical-debt"],
  tag_match_mode="any",
  modified_since="2025-04-01",
  include_content=True
)

然后，代理可以分析依赖关系、识别风险并推荐资源分配

会议行动项目挖掘：

# Get all recent meeting notes with full content
search_vault(
  search_in_path="Meetings/",
  title_contains=["standup", "planning", "retrospective"],
  title_match_mode="any",
  created_since="2025-05-01",
  include_content=True
)

代理扫描内容中的行动项目、提取任务并创建按时间顺序排列的跟踪

研究差距分析：

# Find research notes with questions or gaps
search_vault(
  query="(TODO|QUESTION|INVESTIGATE|UNCLEAR)",
  query_type="regex",
  tag=["research", "analysis"],
  tag_match_mode="any",
  include_content=True
)

# Cross-reference with team expertise
search_vault(
  search_in_path="Team/",
  tag=["expertise", "skills"],
  tag_match_mode="any",
  include_content=True
)

代理识别知识差距并建议可以提供帮助的团队成员

保险库结构探索：

# Quick organizational overview
browse_vault_structure(recursive=True)

# Deep dive into specific areas
browse_vault_structure(
  path="Projects/CurrentSprint/",
  include_files=True,
  recursive=True
)

基于标签的知识图谱：

# Find notes with multiple tags (AND logic)
search_vault(
  tag=["project", "urgent"],
  tag_match_mode="all",
  include_content=True
)

# Find notes with any relevant tags (OR logic)
search_vault(
  tag=["architecture", "design", "implementation"],
  tag_match_mode="any",
  modified_since="2025-04-15"
)

发展

# Install with test dependencies
uv pip install -e ".[test]"

# Run the server
python -m obsidian_mcp.server

# Run tests
uv run behave features/blackbox_tests.feature
# Or use the test runner
python run_tests.py

执照

该项目根据 MIT 许可证获得许可 - 有关详细信息，请参阅LICENSE文件。

Available Tools

3 tools

browse_vault_structureA

Read-only

Browse vault directory structure.

Args:
    path: Path to browse from (defaults to vault root)
    include_files: Include files in listing (default: False, folders only)
    recursive: List nested contents recursively

Name	Required	Description	Default
`include_files`	No
`path`	No
`recursive`	No

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, indicating this is a safe read operation with deterministic results. The description adds valuable context about default behaviors (browsing from vault root, folders-only by default) and the recursive option, which goes beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions with annotations exist.

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 perfectly structured: a clear purpose statement followed by a bullet-point style explanation of each parameter. Every sentence earns its place, with no wasted words. The information is front-loaded with the core purpose first.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a directory browsing tool with 3 parameters, no output schema, and good annotations, the description covers the essential behavior and parameters adequately. However, it doesn't describe the return format (e.g., what structure is returned, error conditions), which would be helpful given the lack of output schema.

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

Parameters4/5

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

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries full burden for parameter meaning. It successfully explains all three parameters: 'path' (starting location with default), 'include_files' (files inclusion toggle with default), and 'recursive' (nested listing). This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 the verb ('Browse') and resource ('vault directory structure'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_note_content' (which retrieves content) and 'search_vault' (which searches), but doesn't explicitly mention these distinctions in the description itself.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage for exploring directory structure rather than retrieving content or searching, but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_vault'. The parameter descriptions suggest default behaviors (folders only, non-recursive), which gives some contextual hints.

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

get_note_contentA

Read-only

Get the full content and metadata of a specific note by path.

Args:
    path: Full path to the note within the vault

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, indicating a safe, read-only operation with a closed world. The description adds context by specifying 'full content and metadata,' which hints at the return format, but doesn't detail aspects like error handling, rate limits, or auth needs. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a concise parameter explanation. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema), annotations cover safety, and the description adds parameter semantics and purpose. However, it lacks details on return values, error cases, or how it differs from siblings, leaving some gaps for an AI agent to infer usage.

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

Parameters4/5

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

With 0% schema description coverage and 1 parameter, the description compensates by explaining 'path: Full path to the note within the vault,' adding meaning beyond the bare schema. It clarifies the parameter's purpose and format, though it could provide more examples or constraints.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Get the full content and metadata of a specific note by path.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('note'), and scope ('full content and metadata'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'browse_vault_structure' or 'search_vault' beyond the 'specific note by path' aspect.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage by specifying 'by path,' suggesting it's for retrieving a known note, but it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_vault' for unknown notes or 'browse_vault_structure' for exploring. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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

search_vaultA

Read-only

Search Obsidian vault for notes matching criteria.

Args:
    query: Text or regex pattern to search for
    query_type: "text" or "regex" 
    search_in_path: Limit search to specific folder
    title_contains: Filter by title (string or array)
    title_match_mode: "any" or "all" for multiple title terms
    tag: Filter by tag (string, array, or JSON string like title_contains)
    tag_match_mode: "any" or "all" for multiple tag terms
    context_length: Characters of context around matches
    include_content: Return full note content
    modified_since/until: Filter by modification date (YYYY-MM-DD)
    created_since/until: Filter by creation date (YYYY-MM-DD)
    page_size/page: Pagination controls
    max_matches_per_file: Limit matches per file

Name	Required	Default
`context_length`	No
`created_since`	No
`created_until`	No
`include_content`	No
`max_matches_per_file`	No
`modified_since`	No
`modified_until`	No
`page`	No
`page_size`	No
`query`	No
`query_type`	No	text
`search_in_path`	No
`tag`	No
`tag_match_mode`	No	any
`title_contains`	No
`title_match_mode`	No	any

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, indicating this is a safe read operation with limited scope. The description adds useful context about what gets searched ('notes') and the types of criteria available, but doesn't disclose behavioral aspects like performance characteristics, rate limits, or error conditions. With annotations covering the safety profile, this earns a baseline score.

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?

The description is well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by a comprehensive parameter list. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information. It could be slightly more concise by grouping related parameters, but overall it's efficient and front-loaded with the core functionality.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a complex search tool with 16 parameters and no output schema, the description does a good job explaining inputs but has gaps. It doesn't describe the return format (what the search results look like), error conditions, or performance considerations. The parameter explanations are excellent, but without output information or behavioral context, completeness is limited.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage (titles only, no descriptions), the description carries the full burden of explaining parameters. It provides detailed semantic information for all 16 parameters, including data types, formats, and usage examples (e.g., 'YYYY-MM-DD' for dates, 'text' or 'regex' for query_type). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Search Obsidian vault for notes matching criteria.' This specifies the verb ('search'), resource ('Obsidian vault'), and target ('notes matching criteria'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'browse_vault_structure' or 'get_note_content', which prevents a perfect score.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of sibling tools like 'browse_vault_structure' (for exploring structure) or 'get_note_content' (for retrieving specific note content), nor any context about when search is appropriate versus other approaches.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

3 tool updatesv1.0.0Aug 15, 2025
- First observedbrowse_vault_structure
- First observedget_note_content
- First observedsearch_vault

Deploy Server

Shareable, User-Owned Context BackendPeople, applications, and agents read, write, and coordinate together in one context lake. Reach it over MCP, a CLI, a Python SDK, or REST.fulcradynamics.comAd

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Scored 2026-04-18 10:00 across 3 tools

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: browse_vault_structure is for exploring the file hierarchy, get_note_content retrieves a specific note's details, and search_vault performs complex queries across the vault. There is no overlap in functionality, making it easy for an agent to select the right tool.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case: browse_vault_structure, get_note_content, and search_vault. The naming is predictable and readable, with no deviations in style or convention.

Tool Count3/5

With only 3 tools, the server feels thin for managing an Obsidian vault, which typically involves operations like creating, updating, or deleting notes. While the tools cover browsing, reading, and searching, the lack of write operations limits the scope, making it borderline for the domain.

Completeness2/5

The tool set is severely incomplete for an Obsidian vault management server. There are no tools for creating, updating, or deleting notes, which are core CRUD operations. This creates significant gaps that will likely cause agent failures when trying to perform basic note management tasks.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive

ResponsivenessUnresponsive

Resources

Related MCP Connectors

Hint-Services-obsidian-github-mcp
ai.smithery
Connect AI assistants to your GitHub-hosted Obsidian vault to seamlessly access, search, and analy…
Note Taking Version Control File Systems
210
https://server.smithery.ai/@Hint-Services/obsidian-github-mcp/mcp
sunub-obsidian-mcp-server
ai.smithery
Search your Obsidian vault to quickly find notes by title or keyword, summarize related content, a…
Note Taking Search Text Summarization
22
https://server.smithery.ai/@sunub/obsidian-mcp-server/mcp
Artificial Wit AIOAuth
com.artificialwit
MCP server unifying ERPs, CRMs, APIs and knowledge base for Claude, ChatGPT and Gemini.
ERP Systems CRM Knowledge & Memory
2
https://api.artificialwit.com/mcp
Remote MCP A
com.remote-mcp.mcp
The Remote MCP server acts as a standardized bridge between LLM applications (like Claude, ChatGPT, and Cursor) and external services, enabling AI agents to access external tools and resources. Its primary capability is providing a centralized search tool to discover other MCP servers and their respective tools. Unlike local implementations, it runs remotely with OAuth authentication and permission controls for security.
Developer Tools Search Agent Orchestration
13
https://mcp.remote-mcp.com

Related MCP Servers

Obsidian Semantic MCP Server
Developer Tools Note Taking Content Management Systems
aaronsb
A
license
B
quality
F
maintenance
A server that consolidates 21+ Obsidian tools into 5 intelligent operations (vault, edit, view, workflow, system) with contextual workflow hints to help AI agents effectively interact with Obsidian.
Updated a year ago (2025-07-12 02:18 UTC)
5
26 npm
36
MIT
Obsidian Local REST API MCP
Note Taking File Systems Documentation Access
j-shelfwood
A
license
A
quality
B
maintenance
A bridge server that allows LLM tools to interact with an Obsidian vault through a local REST API, enabling file operations, note management, and metadata access through natural language.
Updated a month ago (2026-10-04 12:02 UTC)
13
13 npm
9
MIT
Advanced Obsidian MCP Server
Note Taking File Systems Developer Tools
ToKiDoO
A
license
A
quality
D
maintenance
Empowers AI agents to deeply understand and interact with Obsidian vaults through the Local REST API, enabling advanced features like vault structure discovery, graph analysis, command execution, and batch file operations.
Updated a year ago (2025-10-17 01:29 UTC)
16
18
MIT
Obsidian MCP Server
Note Taking File Systems Developer Tools
duquesnay
A
license
Not graded
quality
D
maintenance
A high-performance TypeScript server that enables interaction with Obsidian vaults through the Local REST API community plugin. It provides comprehensive tool discovery, intelligent resource caching, and unified access to both markdown notes and binary vault files like images and PDFs.
Updated 8 months ago (2026-03-14 05:01 UTC)
5
MIT