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. 'Show folder info' gives no insight into whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are needed, if it has side effects, rate limits, or what the output format looks like. For a tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, this leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified.

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 at just two words, with no wasted language. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of under-specification—it's too brief to be helpful. Every word earns its place, but there aren't enough words to convey meaningful information.

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 tool's complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and many sibling tools), the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't clarify the tool's purpose, usage, behavior, or parameters, making it insufficient for an agent to understand how to invoke it correctly or interpret results.

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 description mentions no parameters, while the schema has 3 parameters (vault, path, info) with 0% schema description coverage. 'Show folder info' doesn't explain what these parameters mean, how they interact, or what 'info' refers to. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving parameters undocumented.

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 'Show folder info' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'obsidian_folder_info'. It provides a vague verb ('show') but doesn't specify what kind of information is shown (metadata, contents, structure, etc.) or how it differs from sibling tools like 'obsidian_file_info' or 'obsidian_folders'. The purpose is unclear beyond the obvious.

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 like 'obsidian_folders' (likely listing folders), 'obsidian_file_info' (showing file info), and 'obsidian_search' (searching content), there's no indication of this tool's specific context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The agent must guess 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.