Obsidian MCP Server

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 states the tool appends content, implying a mutation operation, but lacks details on permissions, error handling, file creation if missing, or effects on existing content. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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 extremely concise—a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and includes a useful parenthetical note about default behavior, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 complexity (5 parameters, mutation operation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It fails to explain parameter roles, behavioral traits like error conditions, or what the tool returns, leaving the agent with inadequate information to use the tool effectively beyond basic intent.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It only mentions the 'file' parameter implicitly via the default active file, but does not explain the purpose of 'vault', 'path', 'content', or 'inline'. With 5 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description adds minimal value beyond hinting at one parameter's default.

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 ('Append content') and target ('to a file'), with the specific detail that it defaults to the active file. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'obsidian_prepend' by specifying the append operation, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other file-modification tools like 'obsidian_create' or 'obsidian_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 provides minimal guidance by noting the default behavior (active file), but offers no explicit advice on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'obsidian_prepend', 'obsidian_create', or 'obsidian_daily_append'. There are no usage prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools mentioned.

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