Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ObsidianMCP

ObsidianMCP

by rcgeorge
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

create_note

Create or overwrite a Markdown note in an Obsidian vault, and embed attachments with ![[filename.png]] syntax.

Instructions

Create a new note or overwrite an existing one in the vault. Embed attachments using ![[filename.png]] syntax.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "path": "<path>",
      "content": "<content>"
    },
    "name": "create_note"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYesPath for the note (e.g. 'Notes/new-note.md')
contentYesMarkdown content for the note. Use ![[filename.png]] to embed attachments.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the tool can overwrite an existing note, which is an important destructive behavior, but it omits permissions, confirmation behavior, and consequences of overwriting (e.g., data loss).

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, with no wasted wording. The second sentence on attachment syntax is relevant but slightly redundant with the schema's content description.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core action and attachment syntax. However, it does not explain overwrite consequences, side effects, or return behavior, which would be needed for fuller completeness without annotations.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters, establishing a baseline of 3. The description's note about ![[filename.png]] syntax duplicates the content parameter's schema description and adds little beyond it.

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 states a specific verb (create) and resource (note), and adds scope: 'Create a new note or overwrite an existing one in the vault.' It implicitly distinguishes itself from append/patch siblings by using 'overwrite,' but does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like append_to_note, patch_note, or update_active_note. Usage is only implied by the word 'overwrite,' leaving the agent to infer when creation is preferred over other mutation tools.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools