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 but provides none. 'Add a bookmark' doesn't indicate whether this creates a new file, modifies existing files, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or what happens on success/failure. For a tool with 7 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is critically insufficient.

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 at just three words. While severely under-specified, it wastes no words and gets straight to the point. There's no unnecessary elaboration or redundant phrasing.

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 7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool actually does beyond the name, provides no parameter guidance, no behavioral context, and no differentiation from sibling tools. This leaves the agent with insufficient information to use the tool correctly.

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 'bookmark' but provides zero information about any of the 7 parameters (vault, file, subpath, folder, search, url, title). With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails completely to compensate by explaining what these parameters mean, how they relate to bookmark creation, or which are required/optional.

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 'Add a bookmark' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'obsidian_bookmark'. It doesn't specify what kind of bookmark (file, URL, note location) or what system it operates within (Obsidian vault). While the verb 'add' is clear, the resource 'bookmark' is too vague without context.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 7 sibling tools including 'obsidian_bookmarks' (likely for listing bookmarks) and various file/note manipulation tools, there's no indication of when this specific bookmark-adding tool is appropriate versus other creation or organization tools.

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