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 of behavioral disclosure. 'Disable a plugin' implies a mutation action but lacks details on effects (e.g., whether it's reversible, requires restart, affects other plugins, or has permissions). It doesn't cover error handling, rate limits, or return values, leaving significant gaps for a tool that modifies system state.

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 extremely concise with a single sentence ('Disable a plugin.'), which is front-loaded and wastes no words. For a simple action, this brevity is appropriate, though it may sacrifice clarity.

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 (a mutation tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the tool's behavior, parameters, or output, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use it correctly beyond the basic action implied by the name.

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 schema provides no parameter documentation. The description adds no information about the three parameters ('vault', 'id', 'filter'), such as what 'id' refers to (plugin name or identifier), how 'vault' is specified, or what 'filter' does. This fails to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 'Disable a plugin' clearly states the verb ('disable') and resource ('a plugin'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't specify what 'disable' means operationally (e.g., deactivation vs. uninstallation) or differentiate from sibling tools like 'obsidian_plugin_enable' beyond the obvious verb difference.

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 prerequisites (e.g., whether the plugin must be enabled first), exclusions, or related tools like 'obsidian_plugin_enable' for toggling states. Usage is implied only by the tool name.

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