Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ObsidianMCP

ObsidianMCP

by rcgeorge
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

list_vault_files

List files and directories in an Obsidian vault by folder path, or omit the path to view root contents.

Instructions

List files and directories in the Obsidian vault. Provide a folder path to list its contents, or omit to list the root.

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": "list_vault_files"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathNoFolder path within the vault (e.g. 'Notes/Projects'). Omit for root.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'List' strongly implies a non-destructive read, but the description never states whether listing is recursive, predictable ordering, or how deep the contents go. For a simple read-only enumeration tool this is minimally viable, not rich.

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, and the scoping behavior (path vs root) is front-loaded immediately after the purpose. Nothing to trim.

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?

For a single-optional-parameter listing tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the purpose and argument semantics adequately. It stops short of describing the shape or depth of the listing, which is the only meaningful remaining gap.

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 a well-described 'path' parameter, so the schema already carries the semantic load. The description restates the same folder/root behavior without adding format, separator, or path-syntax detail beyond the schema example.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('files and directories in the Obsidian vault'), making clear it enumerates vault contents rather than reading or searching them. Sibling tools like search_vault and read_note are clearly distinct in kind, though the description does not name them explicitly to sharpen the routing.

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?

It explains how to use the path argument (provide a folder to list contents, omit for root), which is usage of the parameter rather than when-to-use-vs-alternatives guidance. There is no statement about when to prefer this over search_vault or read_note, leaving the choice implied.

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