Obsidian MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states it 'shows' info (implying read-only). It lacks behavioral details like whether it requires specific permissions, what happens if the file doesn't exist, if it's cached, or what format the info is returned in. Minimal disclosure 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 very concise with just one short phrase, front-loaded with the main purpose. No wasted words, though it could benefit from slightly more detail given the lack of annotations and schema coverage.

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 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'file info' includes, how parameters work, or the return format. For a tool with this complexity and lack of structured data, more context is needed.

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%, so the description must compensate but adds no parameter information. It doesn't explain what 'vault', 'file', or 'path' mean, their relationships, or how they interact with the default behavior. The description fails to provide meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 states the tool shows file info, which is a clear verb+resource combination, but it's vague about what 'file info' includes (e.g., metadata, properties, size). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'default: active file', but doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar tools like obsidian_files or obsidian_folder_info.

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 with 'default: active file', implying it can be used without parameters, but offers no explicit when-to-use advice, alternatives, or exclusions compared to siblings. No mention of prerequisites or when to choose this over other file-related tools.

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