Skip to main content
Glama
sureshsankaran

Obsidian Tools MCP Server

delete_note

Remove notes from your Obsidian vault to declutter and organize your knowledge base by specifying the file path.

Instructions

Delete a note from the Obsidian vault

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYesPath to the note to delete relative to vault root

Implementation Reference

  • The main handler function for the delete_note tool. It resolves the full file path, checks if the note exists, deletes the file using fs.unlink, and returns a success message.
    async function handleDeleteNote(args: { path: string }): Promise<string> {
      const fullPath = resolvePath(args.path);
    
      if (!(await fileExists(fullPath))) {
        throw new Error(`Note not found at ${args.path}`);
      }
    
      await fs.unlink(fullPath);
      return `Successfully deleted note at ${args.path}`;
    }
  • Input schema for the delete_note tool, specifying a required 'path' parameter of type string.
    inputSchema: {
      type: "object",
      properties: {
        path: {
          type: "string",
          description: "Path to the note to delete relative to vault root",
        },
      },
      required: ["path"],
    },
  • src/index.ts:50-63 (registration)
    Registration of the delete_note tool in the tools array, including name, description, and input schema. This is used by the ListTools handler.
    {
      name: "delete_note",
      description: "Delete a note from the Obsidian vault",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {
          path: {
            type: "string",
            description: "Path to the note to delete relative to vault root",
          },
        },
        required: ["path"],
      },
    },
  • src/index.ts:870-871 (registration)
    Switch case in the CallToolRequestSchema handler that routes calls to delete_note to the handleDeleteNote function.
    case "delete_note":
      result = await handleDeleteNote(args as { path: string });
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action is deletion, implying a destructive mutation, but lacks details on permissions needed, whether deletion is permanent or reversible, error handling (e.g., if path doesn't exist), or side effects (e.g., impact on backlinks). This is a significant gap for a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly, and every part of the sentence contributes essential information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given this is a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address critical aspects like what happens on success/failure, whether the deletion is permanent, or how it interacts with sibling tools (e.g., 'get_backlinks' might be affected). For a tool with such behavioral complexity, more context is needed to guide safe usage.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'path' parameter clearly documented as 'Path to the note to delete relative to vault root'. The description doesn't add any semantic details beyond this, such as path format examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and resource ('a note from the Obsidian vault'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'rename_note' or 'update_note' which also modify notes, leaving room for ambiguity about when deletion is specifically appropriate versus other modifications.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., note must exist), exclusions (e.g., cannot delete non-empty folders), or suggest sibling tools for related actions like 'rename_note' for moving notes instead of deleting them, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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/sureshsankaran/obsidian-tools-mcp'

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