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. 'Create or overwrite a file' implies a write operation that can be destructive (overwrites), but it doesn't specify permissions needed, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with 8 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.

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 4 words ('Create or overwrite a file'), with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action, though this brevity comes at the cost of completeness. Every word earns its place by conveying the essential operation.

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, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain parameter usage, behavioral details, or output expectations. For a file creation/overwrite tool in a rich ecosystem like Obsidian with many sibling tools, more context is needed to guide proper usage.

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%, meaning none of the 8 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description provides no information about any parameters—not explaining what 'vault', 'name', 'path', 'content', 'template', 'overwrite', 'open', or 'newtab' mean or how they interact. With 8 undocumented parameters, the description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of 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 'Create or overwrite a file' states a clear verb+resource combination, specifying both creation and overwriting actions. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like obsidian_base_create or obsidian_daily, which may also create files in specific contexts. The purpose is understandable but lacks 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_append, obsidian_prepend, obsidian_read, and obsidian_delete, there's no indication of when creation/overwriting is appropriate versus appending, reading, or deleting. No prerequisites or context for usage are mentioned.

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