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 but fails completely. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be required, whether it's destructive, what format results are returned in, or any rate limits. The description provides no behavioral context beyond the basic query concept.

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 maximally concise - a single 5-word sentence. While this represents severe under-specification, it's not wordy or poorly structured. Every word technically contributes, though the contribution is minimal.

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 (5 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, no output schema), the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'base' is, what kind of query this performs, what results look like, or how parameters work together. For a tool with this level of structural complexity, the description fails to provide the necessary 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?

The description provides zero information about any of the 5 parameters (vault, file, path, view, format), all of which have 0% schema description coverage. The agent must guess what these parameters mean, how they interact, and what values are acceptable. With 5 undocumented parameters and no guidance in the description, this creates significant uncertainty for proper tool invocation.

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 'Query a base and return results' is vague and tautological - it essentially restates the tool name 'obsidian_base_query' without specifying what a 'base' is in this context or what kind of query operation this performs. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like obsidian_search or obsidian_files, leaving the agent to guess what specific resource this queries.

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 absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With numerous sibling tools available (obsidian_search, obsidian_files, obsidian_read, etc.), there's no indication of what makes this tool distinct or when it should be selected over other query/search tools in the Obsidian ecosystem.

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