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. 'Open daily note' implies a read or display operation, but it does not specify whether this creates a new note, opens an existing one, requires specific permissions, or has any side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this minimal description is inadequate.

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 three words, with no wasted language. It is front-loaded and to the point, though this brevity contributes to its inadequacy in other dimensions by omitting necessary details.

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's complexity (2 undocumented parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and multiple sibling tools), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what 'open' entails, how parameters are used, what the output might be, or how it differs from related tools, making it insufficient for effective 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 input schema has 2 parameters ('vault' and 'paneType') with 0% description coverage, meaning their purposes are undocumented. The tool description does not mention these parameters at all, failing to compensate for the schema gap. This leaves the agent with no semantic understanding of what inputs are needed or how they affect the tool's behavior.

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 'Open daily note' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'obsidian_daily' without adding meaningful specificity. It mentions the action ('open') and resource ('daily note'), but fails to distinguish this tool from siblings like 'obsidian_daily_read' or 'obsidian_open', leaving the exact purpose unclear beyond the obvious.

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. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, and with multiple sibling tools related to daily notes (e.g., 'obsidian_daily_append', 'obsidian_daily_read'), this lack of differentiation is a significant gap that could lead to incorrect tool selection.

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