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 only states the basic function. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's read-only (implied but not stated), performance characteristics, how it handles large vaults, what format the output takes, or any limitations. The description adds minimal context beyond the core purpose.

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 that immediately communicates the core function without any wasted words. It's perfectly front-loaded with the essential information and contains no redundant or unnecessary elements.

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 2 undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It explains what the tool does at a high level but provides no guidance on how to use it effectively, what inputs it expects, what format the output takes, or any behavioral constraints. The context demands more comprehensive documentation.

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 both parameters, the description provides no information about what 'vault' or 'total' mean. It doesn't explain whether 'vault' refers to a vault name/path, what happens when null, or what 'total' controls (count vs. list). The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of parameter documentation in the schema.

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 with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('files with no incoming links'), distinguishing it from siblings like obsidian_backlinks (which likely lists incoming links) and obsidian_deadends (which might list files with no outgoing links). It precisely defines what constitutes an 'orphan' file in the Obsidian context.

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 implies usage for identifying isolated files in a knowledge graph, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like obsidian_search or obsidian_files. It doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or specific workflows where this tool is most appropriate.

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