obsidian-ts-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions filtering capabilities but fails to describe key behaviors such as whether the list is paginated, sorted, or includes hidden files, what permissions are required, or the format of the returned data. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('List files in the vault') and immediately adds qualifying details about filtering. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and filtering options but lacks details on behavioral traits like output format, pagination, or error handling. Without annotations or an output schema, users must infer these aspects, leaving room for uncertainty in tool invocation.

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 all three parameters ('folder', 'ext', 'total') clearly documented in the input schema. The description adds marginal value by mentioning filtering by folder and extension, aligning with the schema, but doesn't provide additional context like syntax examples or interaction effects between parameters. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('List') and resource ('files in the vault'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'search_vault' by focusing on listing with optional filtering rather than full-text search. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_vault_info' which might also provide file information.

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 context through the mention of filtering capabilities ('Can filter by folder and/or file extension'), suggesting this tool is for retrieving files with optional scoping. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'search_vault' for content-based queries or 'get_vault_info' for metadata, leaving some ambiguity about tool selection.

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