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. While 'List' implies a read-only operation, it does not specify whether this tool requires specific permissions, how it handles large vaults, what the output format is, or if there are rate limits. The description lacks details on behavioral traits beyond the basic action.

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 is front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to parse and understand quickly 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 the complexity of a tool with 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It adequately states the purpose but fails to address parameter usage, behavioral context, or output details, leaving significant gaps for the agent to navigate.

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%, meaning parameters 'vault' and 'total' are undocumented in the schema. The description does not mention these parameters at all, failing to compensate for the coverage gap. It adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides, leaving the agent uncertain about parameter usage.

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 'List files with no outgoing links' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('files with no outgoing links'), making the purpose specific and unambiguous. It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'obsidian_links' (which likely lists links) or 'obsidian_orphans' (which might list unlinked files), by focusing on files lacking outgoing links.

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 prerequisites, context, or exclusions, such as how it differs from 'obsidian_orphans' or 'obsidian_unresolved', leaving the agent to infer usage based on the name alone.

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