Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
obsidian-mcp

obsidian-mcp

by thoreinstein
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

obsidian_append_note

Append text to the end of an existing note in your Obsidian vault. Requires a file path and content, with an optional vault path override.

Instructions

Append text to the end of an existing 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": {
      "file_path": "<file_path>",
      "content": "<content>"
    },
    "name": "obsidian_append_note"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
contentYesText to append
file_pathYesRelative path to the note
vault_pathNoOptional vault path override

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It doesn't disclose whether appended content adds a newline, how it handles missing files/paths, permission or vault requirements, or whether the operation is idempotent. Only the append-to-end semantics are covered.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single tight sentence with the key scope constraint ('end of an existing note') front-loaded. No wasted words, though it is arguably terse given the missing guidance elsewhere.

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 zero annotation coverage and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits failure behavior, permission requirements, newline/format handling, and any routing to sibling mutation tools.

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 content, file_path, and vault_path. The description adds no parameter detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb (append) and resource (note) with the constraint that the note must already exist. It distinguishes itself from create_note and insert_at_heading by implying end-of-file addition, though it doesn't explicitly name those siblings.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives are given. The phrase 'an existing note' implies the note must pre-exist (versus create_note), but there is no routing to insert_at_heading, replace_in_note, or replace_section for other mutation needs.

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