Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
obsidian-mcp

obsidian-mcp

by thoreinstein
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

obsidian_create_note

Create a new markdown note in a vault by providing a relative file path and initial content.

Instructions

Create a new note with the given content.

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_create_note"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
contentYesInitial content of the note
file_pathYesRelative path for the new note (e.g. "Ideas/MyIdea.md")
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 the full burden. It does not say what happens if file_path already exists (overwrite, error, or merge), how vault_path resolves, or whether parent directories are created — all critical for a mutation 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

A single short, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though arguably under-specified rather than deliberately concise.

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 create/mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should cover existence/overwrite semantics and vault resolution behavior. None of that is present, leaving meaningful gaps an agent cannot resolve from structured fields.

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 all three parameters (content, file_path, vault_path) are already documented in the schema with examples. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline when 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?

States a specific verb (Create) and resource (a new note) with the content source. The word 'new' implicitly separates it from siblings like obsidian_append_note and obsidian_replace_in_note, but no sibling is named explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the alternatives (append_note, insert_at_heading) that would be preferable when the note already exists. The agent gets no routing signal.

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