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. 'List bookmarks' gives no information about whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be needed, whether it's destructive, what the output format looks like, or any rate limits. For a tool with 3 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is completely inadequate behavioral 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 extremely concise at just two words. While this represents severe under-specification rather than ideal conciseness, from a pure structural perspective it's front-loaded with zero wasted words. Every word earns its place, though there are far too few words to be helpful.

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 tool has 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema, and multiple sibling tools, the description 'List bookmarks' is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what bookmarks are in this context, how parameters affect the listing, what the output contains, or how this differs from related tools. This fails to provide the minimal context needed for effective tool 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 no parameters at all, while the schema has 3 parameters (vault, total, verbose) with 0% schema description coverage. The schema only provides titles ('Vault', 'Total', 'Verbose') without explaining what these parameters mean or how they affect the listing. The description fails completely to compensate for this gap by adding any parameter semantics.

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 'List bookmarks' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'obsidian_bookmarks'. It provides no additional specificity about what kind of bookmarks are being listed (Obsidian bookmarks? Browser bookmarks?), what format they're in, or what distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'obsidian_bookmark' (singular). The purpose is minimally stated but lacks 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 absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools in the Obsidian ecosystem (like 'obsidian_search', 'obsidian_files', 'obsidian_tags'), there's no indication whether this is for listing bookmarks within notes, bookmark files, or something else. No context about prerequisites, alternatives, or exclusions is mentioned.

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