Obsidian MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'List backlinks' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify what format the backlinks are returned in, whether there are rate limits, authentication requirements, or how errors are handled. The description provides minimal behavioral context beyond the basic operation.

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 at just 7 words, front-loading the core purpose immediately. Every word earns its place: 'List backlinks to a file' states the action, and '(default: active file)' provides important contextual information without redundancy.

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 5 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what backlinks are in this context (Obsidian notes referencing the target file), how results are structured, or how parameters interact. For a tool with this complexity and lack of structured documentation, the description should provide more context.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for all 5 parameters, the description provides no information about what 'vault', 'file', 'path', 'counts', or 'total' mean or how they interact. The description mentions 'default: active file' which hints at the 'file' parameter but doesn't explain the relationship between 'file' and 'path' parameters or what 'counts' and 'total' control.

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's purpose: 'List backlinks to a file' with the verb 'List' and resource 'backlinks to a file'. It distinguishes from some siblings like 'obsidian_links' (which might list outgoing links) by focusing on incoming references. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all similar tools like 'obsidian_search' which might also find references.

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 implied usage context by specifying 'default: active file', suggesting this tool is primarily for examining backlinks to the current file. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'obsidian_search' for finding references, or mention prerequisites like needing an open file. No explicit when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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