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 but offers minimal behavioral insight. It implies mutation ('Move or rename') but doesn't disclose critical details like whether the operation is destructive, requires specific permissions, handles errors (e.g., if file doesn't exist), or what happens to links/references. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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?

Extremely concise and front-loaded in a single sentence with no wasted words. Every part ('Move or rename a file', 'default: active file') adds value, making it efficient despite its brevity.

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 mutation tool with 4 parameters (0% schema coverage), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, parameter usage, error handling, and output format, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use it effectively.

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 description must compensate but adds minimal parameter context. It hints at 'file' (default: active file) and implies 'to' as destination, but doesn't explain the purpose of 'vault', 'path', or how parameters interact (e.g., if 'file' is null, what 'path' does). With 4 parameters undocumented, this is inadequate.

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 ('Move or rename') and resource ('a file'), with a specific default behavior ('default: active file'). It distinguishes from siblings like obsidian_rename by covering both move and rename operations, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with obsidian_rename.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like obsidian_rename or obsidian_create. The description mentions a default (active file) but doesn't explain when to override defaults or provide any context about prerequisites or typical use cases.

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