Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ObsidianMCP

ObsidianMCP

by rcgeorge
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

execute_command

Run an Obsidian command by ID to trigger editor actions, formatting, and vault operations. Use list_commands to find available command IDs.

Instructions

Execute an Obsidian command by its ID. Use list_commands to find available command IDs.

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": {
      "commandId": "<commandId>"
    },
    "name": "execute_command"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
commandIdYesThe command ID to execute (e.g. 'editor:toggle-bold')

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does 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 never says whether executing a command is destructive or irreversible, whether it can modify or delete vault content, or what a failed/unknown command ID returns — significant omissions for a tool that runs arbitrary application commands.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the prerequisite follow-up second. Every sentence earns its place.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema it covers the essentials: the action and how to obtain a valid ID. It leaves the agent without any sense of side effects, failure modes, or whether the call returns a result, which matters for executing an arbitrary command.

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% and the schema already documents commandId with a concrete example ('editor:toggle-bold'). The description adds 'by its ID' and points to list_commands for discovery, but no format or validation detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Execute') and resource ('an Obsidian command') and specifies the keying parameter ('by its ID'). It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling list_commands, so an agent can tell execute vs. enumerate apart without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to list_commands to discover valid command IDs, which is the critical prerequisite. It stops short of stating when not to use it or what conditions make execution unsafe, so it is clear context without exclusions.

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