Obsidian MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates deletion behavior and default trash placement, but fails to address critical aspects like permissions required, whether deletion is reversible from trash, error handling for non-existent files, or what the tool returns upon success/failure. This leaves significant gaps for a destructive operation.

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 (8 words) and front-loaded with the core action. Every word serves a purpose, though it could benefit from slightly more structure (e.g., separating defaults from main action). There's no wasted verbiage, making it efficient despite its brevity.

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?

For a destructive tool with 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It covers basic functionality but misses critical context about parameters, return values, error conditions, and behavioral nuances. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without additional information.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for all 4 parameters, the description must compensate but only partially does so. It implies 'file' parameter usage ('active file') and hints at 'permanent' behavior ('trash by default'), but doesn't explain 'vault' or 'path' parameters at all. This leaves half the parameters undocumented and the others only superficially covered.

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 ('Delete a file') and specifies the default behavior ('default: active file, trash by default'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'obsidian_move' or 'obsidian_rename' that also modify files, which prevents a perfect score.

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 minimal guidance by mentioning defaults, but offers no explicit advice on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'obsidian_move' for relocation or 'obsidian_rename' for renaming). There's no mention of prerequisites, error conditions, or typical use cases, leaving usage context largely implied.

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