Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
obsidian-mcp-pro

obsidian-mcp-pro

by rps321321
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

List Sections

list_sections
Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists a note's headings as a tree of paths with depth, helping you discover valid section arguments before reading or editing specific sections.

Instructions

List all headings in a note as a tree of paths (with depth). Useful for discovering valid section arguments before calling get_note, update_section, or insert_at_section.

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": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "list_sections"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYesVault-relative path to the note.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv4.1.1
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
  2. Addedv2.0.0
  3. Removedv1.9.0
  4. Addedv1.8.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds the output shape (tree of paths with depth) that annotations cannot convey. It omits edge behavior such as what happens for a missing path or a note with no headings.

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 sentences, zero waste, with the core capability front-loaded and the usage hint following immediately.

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?

With no output schema, the description adequately covers the return shape (tree of paths with depth) and the tool's role in the workflow. Only minor gaps remain around error or empty-result behavior for a nonexistent path.

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% and the single `path` parameter is documented there as a vault-relative note path. The description's 'in a note' reinforces the target but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (list) and resource (headings in a note) and even specifies the return shape: a tree of paths with depth. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_note or list_notes.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly frames the tool as a discovery step before calling get_note, update_section, or insert_at_section, naming the exact alternatives and the condition that selects them.

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