Insert content at the start of an Obsidian note, after frontmatter, to add context or updates. Automatically adds .md extension to paths.
Insert text after frontmatter, before the note body. The .md extension is added automatically.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| content | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate the operation is mutating (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying the exact insertion point and the automatic `.md` extension. It does not cover edge cases like missing frontmatter or non-existent notes, but the added detail goes beyond what annotations provide.
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?
Two compact sentences with no filler. The core positional behavior is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a useful operational detail. Every word earns its place.
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 tool is simple and the description covers the main mechanics, but with no output schema and sparse annotations an agent is left guessing about return values and failure behaviors, such as whether the note must already exist. Given the tool's low complexity, this is adequate but not fully complete.
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 carries the full burden of explaining `path` and `content`. It implies `content` is the text to insert and `path` gets an `.md` extension, but it never explicitly defines either parameter or explains path formats or whether directories are supported. This is insufficient compensation for the complete lack of schema descriptions.
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 states a specific verb and resource: inserting text into a note at a precise location (after frontmatter, before the body). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling `append_to_note`, which would append elsewhere. The automatic `.md` extension detail further clarifies the intended operation.
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 gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as `append_to_note` or `create_note`. There are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or mentions of sibling tools. An agent must infer usage purely from the name and positional wording.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.