Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ObsidianMCP

ObsidianMCP

by rcgeorge
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

patch_active_note

Insert or replace Markdown content under a chosen heading in the active Obsidian note, controlling section start or end and heading boundary.

Instructions

Insert or replace content relative to a heading in the currently active note.

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": {
      "content": "<content>"
    },
    "name": "patch_active_note"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
contentYesMarkdown content to insert
headingNoTarget heading to insert content under
insertPositionNoWhere to insert: 'beginning' or 'end'
headingBoundaryNoHeading level that marks the end of the target section

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Insert or replace' hints at overwrite potential, but it omits permissions, what happens if the heading is missing, whether the operation is reversible or idempotent, and what the tool returns.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the core action and target come first. It is efficient, though so terse that it hedges heavily on guidance.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin: it explains neither sibling selection nor failure/overwrite semantics that an agent needs to invoke it safely.

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 documents content, heading, insertPosition, and headingBoundary. The description adds nothing about parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 clear verb pair ('Insert or replace') and resource ('content relative to a heading'), and the phrase 'currently active note' scopes it apart from the sibling patch_note, which presumably targets a named note. An agent can infer the target without opening the schema, though the relationship to patch_note is only implicit.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The description never mentions alternatives such as patch_note, update_active_note, or append_to_active_note, so the agent must guess which of several active-note mutation tools applies.

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