Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
obsidian-mcp

obsidian-mcp

by thoreinstein
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

obsidian_move_note

Move or rename a markdown note in an Obsidian vault by specifying its current source path and new destination path.

Instructions

Move or rename a 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": {
      "source_path": "<source_path>",
      "dest_path": "<dest_path>"
    },
    "name": "obsidian_move_note"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dest_pathYesNew relative path for the note (e.g. "Archive/OldNote.md")
vault_pathNoOptional vault path override
source_pathYesCurrent relative path of the note

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 provided, so the description must carry full behavioral burden. It doesn't disclose whether the operation overwrites existing files, how links are handled, whether it creates missing directories, or any error semantics. This leaves significant gaps for a file-mutating operation.

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?

A single, direct sentence that states the purpose immediately with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 file-move operation with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter details in the description, this is incomplete. An agent needs to know about overwrite behavior, link updates, and directory creation. The description leaves these critical aspects unaddressed.

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 all three parameters with examples. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 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 (move/rename) and resource (note), naming two related operations clearly. It doesn't distinguish from siblings like obsidian_update_frontmatter or obsidian_replace_section, but the verb-resource pairing is unambiguous.

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 on when to use move vs rename, no prerequisites, no mention of what happens to links or backlinks. The description only restates the tool's basic action without context about alternatives.

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