Obsidian MCP

by takuya0206

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

TypeScript

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes: listNotes for browsing, readNote/readActiveNote for reading, patchNote for editing, and searchWithJsonLogic for querying. However, readNote and readActiveNote could potentially be confused as they both read notes, though one targets a specific note and the other the active note, which is clarified in their descriptions.
Naming Consistency3/5
The naming is mixed: listNotes, readNote, and searchWithJsonLogic follow a verb_noun pattern, but patchNote uses a verb_noun format with a different verb style, and readActiveNote includes an adjective, breaking consistency. While readable, it lacks a uniform convention across all tools.
Tool Count4/5
With 5 tools, the count is reasonable for an Obsidian vault management server, covering core operations like listing, reading, editing, and searching notes. It's slightly lean but functional, as it includes essential CRUD-like actions without being overwhelming.
Completeness3/5
The tool set covers reading, editing, listing, and searching notes, but lacks explicit create and delete operations for notes, which are common in file-based systems. This creates gaps in full lifecycle management, though patchNote can modify existing notes and agents might work around missing create/delete by other means.
Average 3.1/5 across 5 of 5 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
This repository is archived. Archived repositories automatically receive an F maintenance tier.
This repository is licensed under ISC License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

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. While 'Read' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify what 'contents' includes (e.g., text, metadata, formatting), error handling (e.g., what happens if the note doesn't exist), or any constraints like rate limits or authentication needs. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
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 extremely concise with a single, direct sentence that states the core function without any unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 the lack of annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address what the tool returns (e.g., note content format), error conditions, or how it differs from siblings like 'readActiveNote'. For a tool with one parameter and no structured documentation, more context is needed to be fully helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'a specific note' but doesn't explain what the 'path' parameter represents (e.g., file path, note ID, URL format) or provide any examples. This adds minimal value beyond what's inferred from the tool name, failing to adequately document the single required parameter.
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 verb ('Read') and resource ('contents of a specific note'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'readActiveNote' or 'listNotes', which would require specifying what makes this tool distinct from those alternatives.
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 like 'readActiveNote' or 'listNotes'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or any explicit when/when-not scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but lacks critical behavioral details. It states 'inserts content' implying mutation, but doesn't disclose permissions needed, whether changes are reversible, error handling, or rate limits. The description is minimal and misses key operational context for a tool with 8 parameters and no output schema.
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 front-loads the core purpose without redundancy. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function, making it appropriately sized for its complexity.
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?
For a mutation tool with 8 parameters, 50% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It lacks details on behavioral traits, error cases, return values, and doesn't fully address parameter semantics. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without additional context.
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 50%, with detailed descriptions for 'target' and 'content' but none for 'targetDelimiter', 'trimTargetWhitespace', or 'contentType'. The description mentions 'heading, block reference, or frontmatter field' which aligns with targetType enum values, adding slight context. However, it doesn't explain parameter interactions or compensate for the low coverage gap.
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 ('inserts content') and target ('existing note'), specifying the insertion points ('relative to a heading, block reference, or frontmatter field'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'listNotes' or 'readNote' by focusing on modification rather than retrieval, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
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 like 'searchWithJsonLogic' or 'readActiveNote'. It mentions the insertion points but doesn't specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the operation and targetType parameters alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 it's a read operation but doesn't clarify what 'active note' means, whether it returns structured data or plain text, or if there are any side effects. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.
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, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.
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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'active note' entails, what format the contents are returned in, or how this differs from sibling tools. For a tool with no structured data to rely on, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, earning a baseline score of 4 for not adding unnecessary information.
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 verb ('Read') and resource ('contents of the current active note'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'readNote' or 'listNotes', which might have overlapping functionality.
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 like 'readNote' or 'listNotes'. It doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., whether a note must be actively open) or contextual constraints, leaving usage ambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool is for 'searching' but doesn't clarify if it's read-only, what permissions are needed, how results are returned (e.g., pagination, format), or any rate limits. The description focuses on query syntax rather than operational behavior, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand how to invoke it effectively.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three sentences long and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the second sentence ('Using logical conditions expressed in JSON, you can flexibly filter note metadata and content.') is somewhat redundant with the first, and the third sentence ('Suitable for programmatically generated searches, allowing complex conditions to be expressed in a structured way.') could be integrated more tightly. It's not overly verbose but could be more streamlined.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It explains the query format well via the schema but lacks details on behavioral aspects like result format, error handling, or usage limits. For a tool that likely returns a list of notes, the absence of output schema means the description should compensate more, which it doesn't fully do.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with the 'query' parameter fully documented in the input schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by reiterating that queries use 'JsonLogic format' and are for 'advanced note searching.' However, since there's only one parameter and the schema covers it comprehensively, the baseline is high, and the description doesn't detract from that.
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 tool's purpose: 'Search Obsidian notes using JsonLogic format queries.' It specifies the verb ('search'), resource ('Obsidian notes'), and method ('JsonLogic format queries'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like listNotes or readNote, which might also retrieve notes but with different approaches.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides implied usage guidance: 'Suitable for programmatically generated searches, allowing complex conditions to be expressed in a structured way.' This suggests when to use this tool (for complex, structured searches) but doesn't explicitly state when to choose it over alternatives like listNotes or readNote, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: recursive listing, scope (entire Vault or specific folder), and output format (tree-format string). However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or error handling. For a read-only listing tool, this is adequate but not comprehensive, as it misses operational constraints that could affect agent decisions.
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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's action, scope, and output. It is front-loaded with the core functionality and avoids unnecessary details. Every part of the sentence adds value, making it highly concise and easy to parse for an AI agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (recursive listing with one optional parameter), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is partially complete. It covers the basic operation and output format but omits details like return structure examples, error cases, or performance implications. For a tool without structured output documentation, more context on what the 'tree-format string' entails would improve completeness, but it meets minimum viability.
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 documented as 'Optional folder path to list notes from.' The description adds marginal value by clarifying that listing can be 'under a specified folder,' reinforcing the parameter's purpose. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline is 3, and the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond what the schema provides.
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 tool's purpose: 'Recursively lists files and folders' with the resource being 'the entire Vault or under a specified folder.' It uses specific verbs ('lists,' 'returns') and identifies the output format ('tree-format string'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'searchWithJsonLogic,' which might also involve listing but with filtering, so it misses full sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by mentioning it can list 'the entire Vault or under a specified folder,' suggesting when to use the optional 'path' parameter. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'searchWithJsonLogic' for filtered searches or 'readNote' for individual file access. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated, leaving usage context partially inferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![obsidian-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/takuya0206/obsidian-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/takuya0206/obsidian-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![obsidian-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/takuya0206/obsidian-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/takuya0206/obsidian-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/takuya0206/obsidian-mcp'

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