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. It states the action ('append') but doesn't explain what happens if the daily note doesn't exist, how content is formatted (e.g., line breaks, Markdown), or whether the operation is idempotent. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in 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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, clearly stating the core action without unnecessary details, earning a high score for conciseness.

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 (a mutation tool with 5 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, parameter usage, error handling, and return values, making it inadequate for an AI agent to use the tool effectively without additional context or trial-and-error.

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%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters, but it mentions none. With 5 parameters (1 required, 4 optional), the description adds no meaning beyond what the schema's property names imply (e.g., 'content' is the text to append, but format or constraints are unclear). This fails to address the coverage gap.

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 'Append content to daily note' clearly states the verb ('append') and resource ('daily note'), but it's vague about what 'daily note' specifically refers to in the Obsidian context. It doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'obsidian_daily_prepend' beyond the action direction, nor from 'obsidian_append' which might append to other note types.

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 like 'obsidian_daily_prepend' (for prepending) or 'obsidian_daily_read' (for reading). It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as whether a daily note must exist or how it's identified, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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