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. It states 'List versions' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it requires specific permissions, how versions are retrieved (e.g., from a recovery system), what the output format is, or any rate limits. 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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 (3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain parameter usage, output format, or behavioral context. For a tool that likely interacts with file versioning in a note-taking app, more details are needed to guide effective use by an AI agent.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It mentions 'file recovery' but doesn't clarify the three parameters (vault, file, path) or their roles (e.g., whether 'file' and 'path' are alternatives, what 'vault' refers to). The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema's titles.

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 clearly states the action ('List versions') and the resource ('from file recovery'), which is specific and informative. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'obsidian_diff' or 'obsidian_file_info', which might also involve file history or versions, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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_diff' (which might show differences between versions) or 'obsidian_file_info' (which could include version details), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions for using 'obsidian_history'.

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