Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ObsidianMCP

ObsidianMCP

by rcgeorge
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

update_active_note

Replace the content of the open Obsidian note with new Markdown to update the active note directly from Claude.

Instructions

Overwrite the content of the currently active/open note in Obsidian.

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": "update_active_note"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
contentYesNew markdown content for the active note

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. "Overwrite" usefully signals full replacement (destructive, unlike patch/append), but it omits what happens to prior content, reversibility, permission requirements, and the failure mode when no note is active.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the destructive verb leading and zero wasted words. Appropriately sized for a one-parameter tool.

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 simple one-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate, but it leaves the destructive/irreversible nature and sibling distinctions implicit. Given the dense sibling set of *_active_note variants, a bit more routing context would help.

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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage ("New markdown content for the active note"), so the schema already documents it. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 ("Overwrite") and resource ("currently active/open note in Obsidian"), which distinguishes it from generic note tools. However, it doesn't differentiate itself from close siblings like patch_active_note or append_to_active_note, which share the same target resource.

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?

No guidance on when to choose this over patch_active_note or append_to_active_note, nor any prerequisite such as an active note being open. The agent must infer the distinction from the verb alone.

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