Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ObsidianMCP

ObsidianMCP

by rcgeorge
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

search_vault

Find notes in an Obsidian vault using full-text fuzzy search. Returns matching filenames and context to locate information quickly.

Instructions

Search for notes in the vault using full-text fuzzy search. Returns matching filenames and context.

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": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "search_vault"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax number of results to return (default: all)
queryYesSearch query string

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose two useful traits — the search is fuzzy (not exact-match) and the return shape is 'matching filenames and context' — but it says nothing about whether this is a read-only operation, how the limit behaves, or pagination/ordering of results.

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, front-loaded with purpose then return shape, with no wasted words.

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 simple two-parameter search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and the shape of returned data (filenames plus context). It stops short of clarifying relationship to the other search tools, which is the main 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 description coverage is 100%, so both 'query' and 'limit' are already documented in the schema; the description adds no syntax, format, or fuzzy-matching semantics for the query string. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource ('Search for notes in the vault') plus the technique ('full-text fuzzy search'), so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling search tools (search_dataview, search_jsonlogic), which an agent must infer from names alone.

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 guidance and no mention of the alternative search tools in the sibling list (search_dataview, search_jsonlogic). The agent is left to infer from tool names whether this is the right search entry point.

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