Generate or replace daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly, or yearly notes in Obsidian. Provide the period type and Markdown content to keep your periodic notes current.
Create or overwrite a periodic note (daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly, or yearly).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| period | Yes | The period type for the note | |
| content | Yes | Markdown content for the periodic note |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully reveals that an existing note is overwritten (implying data loss), which is the key trait for a destructive write, but says nothing about required permissions, where the note lands, or what the call returns.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence with zero waste, front-loading the verb and resource and appending the period scope. Nothing is extraneous.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter write with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is adequate on purpose. It leaves the overwrite semantics underspecified (what is lost, what happens on success) and gives no return information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description only repeats the period enum values already defined in the schema and adds no syntax, format, or defaulting detail.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb pair ("Create or overwrite") and resource ("periodic note") plus the scope of period types, which lets an agent separate it from get_periodic_note and append_to_periodic_note. It does not, however, explicitly contrast with the generic create_note sibling.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to choose this over create_note, append_to_periodic_note, or get_periodic_note, and no preconditions (e.g., whether the period must map to an existing vault config). The only hint is the implicit 'create/overwrite' behavior.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.