Obsidian MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'shows' headings, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify if this requires file access permissions, how headings are formatted (e.g., as a list or structured output), or any error handling (e.g., if no file is open). This lack of detail is a significant gap for a tool with multiple parameters.

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 no wasted words, making it easy to parse and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's function, achieving optimal conciseness.

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 (5 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., a list of headings, their levels, or a formatted outline), how parameters interact, or any behavioral nuances. This leaves the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively beyond a basic understanding.

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 description mentions 'current file', which loosely relates to the 'file' or 'path' parameters, but it doesn't explain the purpose of any of the 5 parameters (vault, file, path, format, total), all of which have 0% schema description coverage. For example, it's unclear what 'format' or 'total' do, leaving the agent to guess based on titles alone. This fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 ('Show') and resource ('headings for the current file'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'obsidian_read' or 'obsidian_file_info', which might also provide file content or metadata, but the focus on headings is clear.

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. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, such as requiring an open file or specific context, nor does it compare to siblings like 'obsidian_read' (which might show full content) or 'obsidian_search' (which could find headings). This leaves the agent without explicit usage context.

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