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 this is a read operation, which implies it's non-destructive, but doesn't clarify what 'daily note contents' means (e.g., current date vs. specified date), how it handles missing notes, or any permissions/rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no 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 extremely concise ('Read daily note contents.') with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and gets straight to the point, making it efficient for quick understanding.

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 (reading daily notes in Obsidian), lack of annotations, no output schema, and undocumented parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'daily note contents' includes, how dates are determined, error handling, or return format, leaving too many open questions for effective 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 1 parameter ('vault') with 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no information about parameters. This leaves the 'vault' parameter completely undocumented in both schema and description, failing to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 clearly states the action ('Read') and target ('daily note contents'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from similar siblings like 'obsidian_read' or 'obsidian_daily', leaving some ambiguity about its unique scope.

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_read', 'obsidian_daily', and 'obsidian_daily_path', there's no indication of how this tool differs or when it should be preferred, leaving usage context unclear.

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