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. 'Enable a plugin' implies a mutation operation, but it doesn't describe effects (e.g., whether the plugin becomes active immediately, requires a restart, or affects vault performance), permissions needed, error conditions, or side effects. This is inadequate for a tool with potential system impact.

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 at three words, with no wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action, though this brevity comes at the cost of clarity and completeness. Every sentence (here, a single phrase) earns its place by stating the tool's action, albeit minimally.

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 tool's complexity (a mutation operation with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It lacks purpose differentiation, usage guidelines, behavioral details, parameter explanations, and output information. This is inadequate for enabling a plugin in a system like Obsidian.

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%, meaning none of the three parameters (vault, id, filter) are documented in the schema. The description adds no information about what these parameters mean, their formats, or how they interact (e.g., 'id' likely identifies the plugin, but this isn't stated). For a tool with undocumented parameters, the description fails to compensate.

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 'Enable a plugin' is a tautology that restates the tool name 'obsidian_plugin_enable' without adding specificity. It doesn't clarify what resource is being enabled (e.g., an Obsidian plugin), distinguish it from sibling tools like 'obsidian_plugin_disable' or 'obsidian_plugin_info', or provide any context about what enabling entails.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., plugin must be installed), differentiate from sibling tools like 'obsidian_plugin_disable' for disabling plugins, or specify scenarios where enabling is appropriate. The description offers no usage context.

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