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. 'List folders' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it requires specific permissions, how it handles large vaults (e.g., pagination or performance limits), what the output format is (e.g., list of strings or objects), or error conditions. The description is minimal and misses key operational details.

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, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to scan and understand quickly. No unnecessary details or redundancy are present.

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 (a tool with 3 parameters and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks parameter explanations, usage context, and behavioral details. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should provide more guidance on what the tool returns and how to use it effectively, but it does not.

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 schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description adds no information about the three parameters (vault, folder, total), leaving their purposes and usage completely undocumented. For example, it's unclear if 'folder' filters results or specifies a starting path, or what 'total' controls. The description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 folders in the vault' clearly states the action (list) and resource (folders in the vault). It distinguishes from siblings like obsidian_files (which lists files) and obsidian_vault (which might manage vaults), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from obsidian_folder_info (which could provide details about a specific folder). The purpose is specific and actionable.

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 siblings like obsidian_files (for files), obsidian_search (for searching), and obsidian_folder_info (for folder details), there's no indication of when listing folders is preferred over other methods. It lacks context about prerequisites or exclusions.

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