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. It mentions 'prepend' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this modifies files permanently, requires specific permissions, handles errors, or interacts with Obsidian's UI. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 front-loaded and appropriately sized for its limited content, though this conciseness comes at the cost of detail.

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, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks essential details about behavior, parameters, and context, making it insufficient for safe and effective use by an AI agent.

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%, and the description adds no parameter semantics beyond the tool name. With 5 parameters (vault, content, paneType, inline, open) and only 'content' required, the description doesn't explain what these mean, their formats, or default behaviors, failing to compensate for the schema 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 'Prepend content to daily note' clearly states the action (prepend) and target (daily note), which is better than a tautology. However, it doesn't specify what distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'obsidian_daily_append' or 'obsidian_prepend', leaving the scope vague regarding daily notes specifically.

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 siblings like 'obsidian_daily_append' (append to daily note) and 'obsidian_prepend' (prepend to general notes), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving usage ambiguous.

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