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 only states 'List or compare versions from file recovery and Sync,' which doesn't reveal whether this is a read-only or mutative operation, what permissions are needed, how results are returned, or any rate limits. For a tool with 6 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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: 'List or compare versions from file recovery and Sync.' It's front-loaded with the core purpose and has no wasted words. While it lacks detail, it is structurally sound and appropriately sized for its content.

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 (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is highly incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'versions' refer to, how the tool behaves, what the return values are, or how parameters should be used. This is inadequate for a tool that likely involves version comparison or listing, as the agent lacks essential context to invoke it correctly.

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 none of the 6 parameters (vault, file, path, from_, to, filter) have descriptions in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema—it doesn't explain what these parameters do, how they interact, or provide examples. This leaves the agent guessing about parameter usage, which is inadequate for a tool with multiple inputs.

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 or compare versions from file recovery and Sync' states a general purpose but is vague about what specific resource is being acted upon. It mentions 'versions' but doesn't specify whether these are file versions, vault versions, or something else. The verb 'list or compare' is somewhat clear, but it doesn't distinguish this tool from siblings like 'obsidian_history' or 'obsidian_files' that might also deal with versioning or file operations.

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 doesn't mention any prerequisites, context, or exclusions, and with many sibling tools like 'obsidian_history' and 'obsidian_files' that might overlap, there's no explicit or implied differentiation. This leaves the agent without clear direction on tool selection.

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