Create folders in Obsidian vaults, automatically generating any missing parent directories. Returns the folder path and creation status for confirmation.
Create a folder (and any missing parents) in the vault. Returns {path, status}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| vault | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the core mutation and parent-creation behavior, but omits error behavior, idempotency, permission requirements, vault validation, and what happens when the folder already exists.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is exceptionally concise: one action-focused sentence plus one return-value sentence. Every word earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no schema-level parameter descriptions, the description should provide more operational context. It covers the return shape, but path semantics and vault selection are left to inference, making the definition incomplete for a mutation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the path format, whether the path is relative to the vault root, or how the optional vault parameter behaves. The 'missing parents' note adds some meaning to path, but it is insufficient compensation for two undocumented parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (create), the resource (folder), and the scope (vault), and adds the useful detail that missing parent folders will also be created. It does not explicitly name sibling tools, but the verb/resource combination already sets it apart from note, attachment, and template tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The intended use is implied by 'Create a folder...', so an agent can infer when to call this tool. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it, prerequisites, or how it compares to alternatives such as listing folders or creating from templates.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.