excalidraw-mcp-obsidian

by zzmkxd

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Local

export_to_obsidian

Export the current Excalidraw canvas to an Obsidian-compatible .excalidraw.md file for direct use in Obsidian.

Instructions

Export the current canvas to an Obsidian-compatible .excalidraw.md file.

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": {
      "filePath": "<filePath>"
    },
    "name": "export_to_obsidian"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`tags`	No
`filePath`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 12, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It only states the export action, but does not mention whether the file is overwritten, what 'current canvas' entails, or any permission requirements. The write nature is implied but not elaborated.

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, front-loaded sentence efficiently communicates the core purpose with no filler. Every word contributes value, aligning with ideal conciseness.

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 simple export tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description lacks important context: tag semantics, file behavior (overwrite/create), and relationship to sibling exports. The basic purpose is clear, but an agent would need to infer too much about how to use parameters correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate. It fails to explain the purpose of 'filePath' or 'tags' beyond their names. Tags are entirely ignored, and no syntax or expected value format is given.

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 states a specific verb ('Export'), the resource ('current canvas'), and the target format ('Obsidian-compatible .excalidraw.md file'). This distinguishes it from siblings like export_to_excalidraw_url (URL) and import_from_obsidian (import).

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 usage for exporting a canvas to an Obsidian-compatible file, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like export_to_excalidraw_url or export_scene. No when-not or alternative mentions are present.

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