Obsidian MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Get plugin info' implies a read-only operation but does not specify permissions, rate limits, side effects, or output format. It lacks critical details like whether it retrieves metadata, status, or configuration, making it inadequate for a tool with no structured safety hints.

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, 'Get plugin info.', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. While under-specified, it is structurally efficient and earns full marks for brevity and clarity within its limited scope.

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 no annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and two parameters (one required), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what 'plugin info' entails, how to use parameters, or behavioral traits, making it inadequate for effective tool invocation in a context with many sibling tools.

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 for undocumented parameters. It mentions no parameters, failing to explain the required 'id' (e.g., plugin identifier) or optional 'vault' (e.g., target vault). This leaves semantics unclear, though it avoids contradiction with 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 'Get plugin info' restates the tool name 'obsidian_plugin_info' with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. It specifies the verb 'Get' and resource 'plugin info' but lacks detail on what 'info' includes or how it differs from sibling tools like 'obsidian_plugins' or 'obsidian_plugins_enabled', failing to provide meaningful differentiation.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'obsidian_plugins' (likely listing plugins) and 'obsidian_plugins_enabled' (likely showing enabled plugins), there is no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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