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. 'List files in the vault' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify if it requires permissions, how it handles large vaults (e.g., pagination or performance limits), or what the output format looks like (e.g., list of file names, paths, or metadata). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 with a single sentence 'List files in the vault', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary details, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 (4 parameters with no schema descriptions, no annotations, no output schema, and many sibling tools), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain parameter usage, behavioral constraints, or how it differs from alternatives. For a tool with multiple optional parameters and no structured guidance, this leaves too much ambiguity for effective agent 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 4 parameters (vault, folder, ext, total) with 0% schema description coverage, meaning none are documented in the schema. The description 'List files in the vault' only implies the 'vault' parameter and doesn't mention 'folder', 'ext', or 'total', leaving most parameters unexplained. This fails to compensate for the low coverage, adding minimal value beyond the 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 'List files in the vault' clearly states the action (list) and resource (files in the vault), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'obsidian_folders' or 'obsidian_search', which might also list or retrieve files in different contexts, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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 many sibling tools available (e.g., 'obsidian_search', 'obsidian_folders'), there's no indication of whether this tool is for basic listing, filtered searches, or other specific use cases. It's a generic statement without context or exclusions.

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