Obsidian MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'List' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, what format the output takes (e.g., file paths, metadata), whether it's paginated, or if there are any rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 gets straight to the point with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple listing tool and front-loads the core functionality immediately.

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?

For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and low schema description coverage, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain the output format, error conditions, or behavioral constraints. While the tool appears simple, the description leaves too many contextual gaps for reliable agent 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 mentions 'in the vault' which relates to the 'vault' parameter, but with 0% schema description coverage, the parameter's purpose and optional nature aren't explained. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, which already shows 'vault' as optional with a null default. Since schema coverage is low, the description doesn't adequately compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 ('List') and target resource ('.base files in the vault'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'obsidian_files' or 'obsidian_search', but the specificity of '.base files' provides some implicit distinction. This is clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like 'obsidian_files', 'obsidian_search', and 'obsidian_base_query', there's no indication of when this listing tool is preferred over those. The description only states what it does, not when it should be used.

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