Obsidian MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Get daily note path' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it requires specific permissions, how it determines the path (e.g., based on current date or a parameter), what happens if no daily note exists, or if it's read-only. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with file systems.

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 'Get daily note path.' is a single, efficient sentence that is front-loaded and wastes no words. It directly conveys the core action without unnecessary elaboration.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a simple input schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., a file path string, an error if not found), behavioral aspects like idempotency or side effects, or how it integrates with sibling tools. For a tool in a complex Obsidian ecosystem, more context is needed.

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 one parameter ('vault') with 0% description coverage, and the tool description doesn't mention parameters at all. However, with 0 parameters effectively (since 'vault' is optional with a default of null), the baseline is 4, as there's little need for parameter explanation. The description doesn't add meaning but doesn't need to compensate for gaps.

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 'Get daily note path' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('daily note path'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'obsidian_daily_read' (which reads content) and 'obsidian_daily' (which might create or manage daily notes), but doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a vault configured), exclusions, or related tools like 'obsidian_daily' or 'obsidian_vault' for context.

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