Obsidian MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it's a creation tool, implying mutation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like permissions needed, whether it overwrites existing items, error conditions, or what happens on success. For a mutation tool with 8 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a basic tool description and front-loaded with the core action. Every word earns its place, though the brevity contributes to the lack of detail in other dimensions.

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 complexity (8 parameters, mutation tool, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'base' or 'item' is, how parameters interact, what the tool returns, or error handling. For a tool with this many undocumented parameters and no structured guidance, the description fails to provide adequate context for effective use.

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. It provides no information about any of the 8 parameters (vault, file, path, view, name, content, open, newtab), their purposes, relationships, or required combinations. The description adds no value beyond the schema's property titles, failing to address the coverage gap.

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 states the action ('create') and target ('new item in a base'), which provides a basic purpose. However, it's vague about what constitutes an 'item' or 'base' in the Obsidian context, and doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'obsidian_create' or 'obsidian_daily_create' (implied by daily tools). It's not tautological but lacks specificity.

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. With many sibling tools for creating or managing content (e.g., 'obsidian_create', 'obsidian_daily', 'obsidian_append'), the description offers no context about when this specific 'base' creation is appropriate, leaving the agent to guess based on the name alone.

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