Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Obsidian Second Brain MCP

Obsidian Second Brain MCP

by theon199
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Suggest Creative Vault Workflows

suggest_use_cases
Read-onlyIdempotent

Rank contextual second-brain workflows by analyzing your Obsidian graph and organization signals.

Instructions

Analyze native graph and organization signals, then rank contextual second-brain workflows.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "suggest_use_cases"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sampleLimitNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
okYes
dataNo
evidenceNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds contextual detail about using 'native graph and organization signals' and ranking workflows, which gives insight into the tool's internal logic without contradicting 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, information-dense sentence. It front-loads the action ('Analyze') and includes no filler, making every word valuable.

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 presence of an output schema and simple single-parameter schema, the description sufficiently explains the core purpose. It doesn't elaborate on what qualifies as a 'contextual second-brain workflow' or detail the output format, but those are partially covered by the output schema and the overall context.

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 has 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention the 'sampleLimit' parameter at all. Although the schema provides min/max/default, the description fails to explain how sampleLimit affects the ranking or what is being sampled, leaving this ambiguous.

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 tool's function: analyze native graph and organization signals and rank contextual second-brain workflows. It uses specific verbs ('analyze', 'rank') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like note reading/writing or task management.

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 the tool is for getting workflow recommendations based on graph/organization signals, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like vault_overview or search_notes. No exclusions or alternative references are provided.

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