Create a new Obsidian note with content and optional frontmatter. Fails if the note already exists; .md extension is added automatically.
Create a new note. Fails if it already exists. The .md extension is added automatically — do not add .md or other extensions to the path. Never create redirect stubs, backups, or temporary files.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| content | Yes | ||
| frontmatter | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only mark the tool as non-read-only and non-idempotent. The description adds useful behavioral detail: duplicate calls fail, .md is appended automatically, extensions are forbidden in the path, and stubs/backups/temp files must never be created. This goes well beyond the annotations without contradicting them.
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?
Three short, front-loaded sentences with no wasted words. Each sentence contributes either the core action or a meaningful constraint.
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?
The description covers the core action, duplicate-failure behavior, path conventions, and prohibited file types. It is slightly incomplete because frontmatter semantics are unexplained and success/return behavior is not described, though no output schema exists.
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%, so the description must clarify parameter meanings. It adds value for path by explaining extension handling, but it says nothing about content semantics or frontmatter formatting, leaving two of three parameters largely underspecified.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Create a new note') plus a unique distinguishing constraint ('Fails if it already exists'). The description also clarifies the extension behavior, making the tool's purpose clear without needing to inspect the schema.
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 description implies create_note is for new notes only, since existing notes cause failure, but it never explicitly points to alternatives like append_to_note or update_frontmatter for modifying existing notes. This is implied usage guidance rather than explicit when/when-not direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.