Provides tools to read, write, search, and manage notes in an Obsidian vault securely.
Click on "Install Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@obsidian-mcp-secure Create a note called 'ideas' with content 'brainstorming session'."
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
Secure Model Context Protocol server that turns your Obsidian vault into a reliable data source for any MCP-compatible AI client — built from scratch with OWASP Top 10 controls and full audit logging.
Listed on the official Anthropic MCP Registry as io.github.dewtech-technologies/obsidian-mcp-secure.
It's the opposite: it's a bridge that lets Claude Desktop (or any MCP client) read and write inside Obsidian safely. Your AI assistant stays where it lives; your vault becomes a structured, auditable datasource it can reach.
┌─────────────────┐ MCP ┌──────────────────────┐ HTTP ┌────────────────────┐ FS ┌─────────────┐
│ │ stdio │ │ :27123 │ │ │ │
│ Claude Desktop │ ───────▶ │ obsidian-mcp-secure │ ───────▶ │ Local REST API │ ─────▶ │ Vault .md │
│ (AI client) │ │ (this package) │ │ (Obsidian plugin) │ │ │
└─────────────────┘ └──────────────────────┘ └────────────────────┘ └─────────────┘Role in the pipeline | Component |
Where you talk | Claude Desktop (or any MCP client) |
Bridge / access control |
|
Data gateway inside Obsidian | Local REST API plugin (by Adam Coddington) |
Your knowledge |
|
One-liner: Claude is the brain, this MCP is the arm, Obsidian is the memory.
There are plugins that put Claude inside Obsidian. This is the inverse, and it exists because:
Your assistant is Claude Desktop — that's where the general-purpose conversations happen. Your notes become one of many contexts Claude can reach, alongside web, GitHub, filesystems, etc.
Security is a first-class concern — deliberate attack surface, no shell access, path traversal blocked, inputs validated with Zod, every call audited.
Zero build, zero account — npx obsidian-mcp-secure and done. Works on Windows, macOS, Linux the same way.
Composability — combine this MCP with fetch, filesystem, git, GitHub, etc., and Claude can cross-reference your vault with external sources in a single conversation.
Related MCP server: obsidian-remote-mcp
Tool | Purpose |
| Read a note by path |
| List files/folders in the vault or a subdirectory |
| Create a new |
| Overwrite an existing note (previous content goes to the audit log) |
| Delete a note — requires |
| Full-text / tag search using Obsidian's own search engine |
| Find notes by partial name — case-insensitive, no exact path needed |
| Enumerate all tags in the vault with usage count; sortable by name or frequency |
| Add |
Control | Implementation |
A01 — Broken Access Control | Path traversal blocked ( |
A02 — Cryptographic Failures | API key read from |
A03 — Injection | All inputs validated with Zod schemas; no |
A04 — Insecure Design | 512 KB max note size; 50-result cap on search; destructive ops require explicit |
A05 — Security Misconfiguration | Only |
A09 — Logging & Monitoring | Full audit log via winston with size-based rotation (5 MB / 10 files) |
Every tool call emits an audit line with action, params (sanitized), success, error, and timestamp.
Obsidian Desktop with a vault open
The Local REST API plugin (by Adam Coddington) — install from Community Plugins, enable it, and:
Turn on "Enable Non-encrypted (HTTP) Server" (simpler than HTTPS self-signed certs)
Copy the API Key shown in the plugin settings
Node.js 18+
Claude Desktop (or another MCP-compatible client)
Open %APPDATA%\Claude\claude_desktop_config.json on Windows (or ~/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json on macOS) and add:
{
"mcpServers": {
"obsidian-secure": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "obsidian-mcp-secure"],
"env": {
"OBSIDIAN_API_KEY": "your-api-key-from-the-plugin",
"OBSIDIAN_HOST": "http://127.0.0.1",
"OBSIDIAN_PORT": "27123",
"LOG_DIR": "C:/path/to/your/logs"
}
}
}
}Windows tip: if
npxfails silently, switch"command": "npx"to"command": "npx.cmd". Some Claude Desktop builds don't resolve barenpxon PATH.
Restart Claude Desktop (tray → Quit, then reopen) and the 9 tools will show up under obsidian-secure.
The real power of MCPs is composability. To reproduce the "read my note → fetch a URL → tell me if I'm applying it correctly" workflow, add the official fetch MCP alongside this one:
{
"mcpServers": {
"obsidian-secure": { "...": "as above" },
"fetch": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "@modelcontextprotocol/server-fetch"]
}
}
}Now Claude has both your vault and the live web in a single conversation.
With obsidian-secure + fetch enabled:
"Read my note
Projeto API Atendimento.md, then fetch https://developers.facebook.com/docs/whatsapp and tell me if my implementation matches the latest best practices."
"Search my vault for the tag
#ideiaand summarize the three ideas that appear most often. Then create a new note calledIdeias recorrentes.mdwith the summary."
"Read
Atomic Habits - Resumo.md, fetch https://jamesclear.com/atomic-habits, and point out where my notes drifted from the original."
Claude will orchestrate the tool calls automatically — no manual chaining.
If your workflow lives inside Obsidian's sidebar, plugins like obsidian-claude-code are the right fit. This MCP targets a different shape:
Dimension |
|
|
Where the AI lives | Sidebar inside Obsidian | Claude Desktop (or any MCP client) |
Setup |
|
|
Tools | Read/Write/Edit + Bash + Grep + Glob + WebFetch | 9 purpose-built, Zod-validated tools |
Security posture | Full shell access to dev machine | Tight allowlist, audited, OWASP Top 10 |
Distribution | Manual clone, requires Bun | npm + official MCP Registry |
Composability with other sources | Inside its own sandbox | Any MCP-compatible client can mix it with fetch, GitHub, filesystem, etc. |
Best for | Dev who lives in Obsidian | Professional whose main surface is Claude Desktop |
Both are valid — they occupy different niches.
Variable | Required | Default | Description |
| ✅ | — | API key from the Local REST API plugin |
|
| Host (only | |
|
| Port of the plugin's HTTP server | |
|
| Directory for the audit log files |
Bug fix: find_note_by_name searches full path (folder + filename)
Bug fix: list_tags normalizes all API response formats (object, array of strings, array of objects with tagCount/taggedFilesCount)
DXT package for one-click install in Claude Desktop (npm run build:dxt)
find_note_by_name — partial, case-insensitive name match across the entire vault
create_backlinks — connect related notes with [[wikilinks]] (explicit, auditable)
list_tags — enumerate all tags in the vault with usage count
Unit test suite (70 tests — utils, handlers, HTTP client) with Vitest
CI pipeline on every PR: tests + coverage + npm audit + static security analysis
Smithery listing
Read-only mode flag for shared / multi-user setups
Ideas and PRs welcome — see CONTRIBUTING.md.
MIT — see LICENSE.
Model Context Protocol by Anthropic
Local REST API plugin by Adam Coddington — the foundation that makes this possible
Built at Dewtech by Wanderson Leandro
Security issues? See SECURITY.md for disclosure instructions.
Adiciona wikilinks [[NomeDaNota]] na seção '## Relacionadas' da nota source. Cria a seção se não existir.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| source_path | Yes | Nota que receberá os backlinks, ex: Projetos/Projeto.md | |
| target_paths | Yes | Lista de notas a vincular, ex: ['Conceitos/API.md', 'Reunioes/2026-01.md'] |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that the tool modifies the source note by adding wikilinks and creates the section if missing. With no annotations, this provides essential behavioral context. It could mention if existing links are overwritten or appended.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that clearly conveys the purpose, action, and fallback behavior. Every word is necessary and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is adequate for a simple mutation tool, but it does not mention the return value or side effects like overwriting. Given no output schema, a note on return behavior would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Both parameters have schema descriptions, but the tool description adds context about the specific section ('## Related') and the action of creating the section. This adds value beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool adds wikilinks in the '## Related' section of a source note, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_note or edit_note. The verb 'Adiciona' and resource 'wikilinks' are specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for adding backlinks to a specific section, which is clear given the tool name and siblings. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus edit_note or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Cria uma nova nota no Obsidian
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Caminho da nota a criar, ex: Projetos/Nova.md | |
| content | Yes | Conteúdo em Markdown |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral transparency. It only states 'Cria uma nova nota' without disclosing what happens if the note already exists, whether folders are created, or any side effects. This is insufficient for safe agent invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no superfluous words. However, it could include more information without becoming overly long, such as clarifying behavior on conflicts.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple creation tool with 2 parameters, the description is minimally viable. However, it lacks details about constraints (e.g., unique path, permission required) and does not reference output, which is absent. Given sibling tools like edit_note and delete_note, more context on usage would help.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% (both 'path' and 'content' have clear descriptions). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Cria' (creates) and the resource 'nova nota no Obsidian' (new note in Obsidian), which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_note, edit_note, and delete_note.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are there any prerequisites or contextual cues. For example, it does not mention that the path must not exist or that backlinks are not created automatically, which are relevant given siblings like create_backlinks.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Deleta uma nota do vault. ATENÇÃO: ação irreversível.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Caminho da nota a deletar | |
| confirm | Yes | Deve ser true para confirmar a deleção |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description explicitly states 'ação irreversível' (irreversible action), which is a key behavioral trait. No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. Lacks details on side effects like backlinks.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence plus a short warning; no wasted words. Efficiently conveys essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for a delete operation with required confirmation parameter. However, lacks details on repercussions (e.g., broken links, cascading deletions) that would fully inform an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters. The description does not add significant extra meaning beyond the schema, but the warning reinforces the confirm parameter's necessity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Deleta' (deletes) and the resource 'nota' (note), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_note, create_note, etc. The irreversibility warning adds context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The irreversibility warning implies careful use, but no prerequisites or when-not-to-use are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Edita o conteúdo de uma nota existente (substitui o conteúdo inteiro)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Caminho da nota a editar | |
| content | Yes | Novo conteúdo em Markdown |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Given no annotations, the description discloses the critical behavior of full content replacement. However, it does not mention prerequisites (note must exist), error handling, or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One sentence with 10 words, front-loading the action and key behavior. Every word adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple 2-parameter tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers the action and key behavior. However, it lacks details on error scenarios, path format, and return value, which would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds behavioral meaning to the 'content' parameter by stating it replaces the entire content, which goes beyond the schema's 'Novo conteúdo em Markdown'. This clarifies it's not a partial update.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly specifies the verb 'edit', resource 'note', and key action 'replaces entire content'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_note (create) and delete_note (delete).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description states when to use (edit existing note) and explicitly notes behavior 'replaces entire content'. It implicitly differentiates from partial updates but doesn't list alternative tools or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Encontra notas pelo nome (busca parcial, insensível a maiúsculas). Útil quando o caminho exato não é conhecido.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Parte do nome da nota a buscar, ex: 'reunião' ou 'API' | |
| limit | No | Máximo de resultados |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral burden. It mentions partial and case-insensitive search but omits what is returned (full note or path), scope of search, and behavior on no matches. This is a significant gap for a search tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise: two sentences, front-loaded with verb and purpose, no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description should explain return values. It fails to mention what the tool returns (e.g., list of note paths or full notes). Also missing scope of search. Incomplete for a simple tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% with both 'name' and 'limit' adequately described. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond the schema, so baseline score applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool finds notes by name with partial, case-insensitive search, and specifies it's useful when exact path isn't known, distinguishing it from sibling tools like read_note that likely require exact path.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Context is clear: use when exact path unknown. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives like search_notes, so some implicit guidance is left to the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Lista arquivos e pastas do vault ou de um diretório específico
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| directory | No | Diretório a listar (vazio = raiz) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It states that the tool lists files and folders, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose details such as whether it returns only names, includes metadata, or if there are any limits or side effects. The description is minimally transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality. Every word contributes to understanding, with no redundant or unnecessary text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is adequately complete. It specifies the resource and parameter behavior. However, it could benefit from mentioning the output format (e.g., names only, flat vs recursive) to further aid agent understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
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 the 'directory' parameter. The description adds context by mentioning 'vault or a specific directory' and 'empty = root', which aligns with the schema description. No additional semantical value beyond what the schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the verb 'Lista' (lists) and specifies the resource as 'arquivos e pastas do vault ou de um diretório específico' (files and folders from the vault or a specific directory). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_note (which reads content) and create_note (which creates notes). The purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when listing vault contents or a specific directory, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives like search_notes or find_note_by_name. No exclusion criteria or use cases are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Lista todas as tags usadas no vault com contagem de ocorrências
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sort | No | Ordenar por nome (name) ou por frequência (count) | name |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It states the tool lists tags with counts, implying it is read-only and non-destructive. However, it does not disclose any potential side effects, permissions needed, or limitations beyond the basic behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, succinct sentence that conveys the essential purpose without any unnecessary words. It is well front-loaded and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It covers the core functionality, though it omits details about the exact output format (e.g., list of objects with tag name and count). Nonetheless, it is adequate for its complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already has 100% coverage with a description for the single parameter 'sort'. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it lists all tags used in the vault with occurrence count. The verb 'lista' and resource 'tags' are specific, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools (all note-focused) by being the only tool dealing with tags.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implicitly suggests use when wanting tag statistics, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. Alternatives like search_notes or list_notes are not mentioned, but the purpose is clear enough for an agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Lê o conteúdo de uma nota do Obsidian pelo caminho
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Caminho da nota, ex: Projetos/MinhaNote.md |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'reads content,' implying a read-only operation, but lacks details on error handling, permissions, or what happens if the path does not exist.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks details on return format, error scenarios, or whether it works with relative vs absolute paths. It is not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% (path parameter described with example). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it merely restates 'by path.' Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool reads the content of an Obsidian note by path. It distinguishes from siblings like list_notes (lists all) or search_notes (searches by criteria) by specifying the unique operation of reading by exact path.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when to prefer read_note over find_note_by_name or search_notes, nor any prerequisites or limitations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Busca notas por conteúdo ou tag no vault
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Máximo de resultados (1-50) | |
| query | Yes | Termo ou tag a buscar, ex: #projeto ou palavra-chave |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the purpose but does not disclose behavioral traits like read-only nature, search algorithm, or how results are returned. Essential details are missing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence. It is efficient but could include slightly more detail without being verbose. Still, it earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema exists, and the description does not explain what is returned (e.g., list of note objects, titles). Given the tool's simplicity, more context about results would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, and the description adds context by explaining the query parameter searches 'conteudo ou tag' (content or tag) and provides an example. This adds meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Busca' (searches) and resource 'notas por conteúdo ou tag no vault' (notes by content or tag in the vault). It distinguishes from siblings like list_notes (lists all) and find_note_by_name (exact name match).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implicitly tells when to use: when searching by content or tag. It does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives, but the context is clear given sibling tools. A 4 is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
v1.2.2create_backlinkscreate_notedelete_noteedit_notefind_note_by_namelist_noteslist_tagsread_notesearch_notesEach tool has a distinct purpose: reading, listing, creating, editing, deleting, searching by content/tag, searching by name, listing tags, and creating backlinks. No overlap; search_notes and find_note_by_name are clearly differentiated by search method.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., read_note, list_notes, search_notes). Even longer names like find_note_by_name maintain the pattern.
9 tools is well-scoped for an Obsidian vault manager, covering core operations (CRUD, search, tags, backlinks) without unnecessary bloat. Each tool earns its place.
The tool set provides full CRUD, content and name search, tag listing, and backlink creation. Minor gaps like moving/renaming notes or batch operations are missing, but the core workflow is well-covered.
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
Hosted MCP server connecting claude.ai, ChatGPT and other AI apps to your own computer
MCP server unifying ERPs, CRMs, APIs and knowledge base for Claude, ChatGPT and Gemini.
MCP server for secureFlows: token-free URL builders and integration-linting tools for AI agents.
Markdown-based note-taking with a hosted MCP server. Your notes serve you and your AI.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/dewtech-technologies/obsidian-mcp-secure'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server
