Skip to main content
Glama
sunub

Obsidian MCP Server

Organize Attachments

organize_attachments

Scans markdown files for linked attachments, moves them to organized folders, and automatically updates file links for better vault management.

Instructions

Scans a specified markdown file for linked images (or other attachments), moves them to a dedicated folder named after the document's title, and updates the links within the markdown file automatically.

Use Cases:

  • When a post is finalized and you want to clean up all associated images into a neat folder.

  • To automatically organize attachments for better vault management.

Example Workflow:

  1. Specify 'my-awesome-post.md' as the fileName.

  2. The tool finds the 'title' property in the frontmatter (e.g., "My Awesome Post").

  3. It finds all image links like ![[my-image.png]].

  4. It creates a folder at '{vault}/images/My Awesome Post/'.

  5. It moves 'my-image.png' into that new folder.

  6. It updates the link in the markdown file to ![[images/My Awesome Post/my-image.png]].

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
keywordYesA keyword to search for the markdown file within the vault.
destinationNoThe base folder to move attachments into. Defaults to "images".images
useTitleAsFolderNameNoIf true, creates a subfolder named after the document title. Defaults to true.
quietNoIf true, returns a minimal success message.
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only provide an openWorldHint, leaving the description to carry most behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the tool's behavior: scanning markdown files, moving attachments to folders, and updating links. It adds valuable context like using the document's title from frontmatter and the detailed workflow, though it could mention potential risks like file overwrites or permission issues.

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?

The description is well-structured and appropriately sized, with a clear purpose statement, use cases, and a step-by-step example workflow. Each sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to understand the tool's functionality efficiently.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (file operations, folder creation, link updates) and lack of output schema, the description provides good completeness with a detailed workflow. However, it could enhance completeness by mentioning error handling or output format, as annotations are minimal and no output schema exists.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema, as it focuses on the overall workflow rather than parameter details. This meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without extra param insights.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('scans', 'moves', 'updates') and resources ('markdown file', 'linked images', 'dedicated folder'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on attachment organization rather than document creation or property manipulation, making its scope explicit and unique.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides clear context for when to use the tool through 'Use Cases' (e.g., 'when a post is finalized', 'for better vault management'), which helps guide appropriate usage. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among sibling tools, missing full differentiation.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/sunub/obsidian-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server