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 for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a listing operation (read-only implied) and mentions default behavior for the active file, but doesn't describe what format the links are returned in, whether there's pagination, what happens with non-existent files, or any rate limits. The description provides basic behavioral context but leaves significant gaps.

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 perfectly concise at 8 words, front-loading the core purpose ('List outgoing links from a file') and efficiently adding the default behavior in parentheses. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy or wasted space.

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?

For a tool with 4 parameters (0% schema coverage), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the parameters do, what format the output takes, or important behavioral aspects like error handling. While the purpose is clear, the description doesn't provide enough context for effective tool invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for 4 parameters, the description must compensate but only partially does so. It mentions 'default: active file' which relates to the 'file' parameter, but doesn't explain 'vault', 'path', or 'total' parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond what the schema provides, failing to adequately compensate for the schema coverage 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List outgoing links from a file' with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('outgoing links from a file'). It distinguishes from sibling 'obsidian_backlinks' which would list incoming links, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other link-related tools like 'obsidian_unresolved' or 'obsidian_deadends'.

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 implied usage guidance by mentioning 'default: active file', suggesting this tool is for examining link relationships from a source file. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like 'obsidian_backlinks' (incoming links) or 'obsidian_unresolved' (broken links), nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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