Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Obsidian Second Brain MCP

Obsidian Second Brain MCP

by theon199
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Daily Note

daily_note

Read, open, append, or prepend to the active daily note in Obsidian to manage your journal directly from your workflow.

Instructions

Read, open, append to, or prepend to the active daily note.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "action": "<action>"
    },
    "name": "daily_note"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
actionYes
contentNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
okYes
dataNo
evidenceNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations provide the read/write safety profile (readOnlyHint false, idempotentHint false, destructiveHint false). The description adds the 'active daily note' scoping and lists the 'open' action, but it does not disclose side effects like whether append/prepend requires content or what 'open' does. This is limited additional context beyond annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently lists all four actions and the target resource. There is no filler or repetition.

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?

Although an output schema exists and annotations are present, the description omits important usage details: when content is required, what 'open' behavior entails, and what happens if no active daily note exists. It is minimally viable but incomplete for a multi-action tool.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description never mentions the 'content' parameter or its role. While the action enum values are fairly self-explanatory, the content field's requirement for append/prepend is left entirely to inference, which is a significant gap.

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 specifies the resource ('the active daily note') and enumerates four concrete operations: read, open, append, and prepend. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_note or update_note, which target general notes rather than the active daily note.

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?

No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives such as read_note or update_note. The phrase 'active daily note' implies a specific use case, but there are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or alternative recommendations.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools