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. 'Install' implies a write/mutation operation, but the description doesn't disclose whether this requires specific permissions, if it's destructive (e.g., overwrites existing plugins), what happens on failure, or any rate limits. It lacks essential context for safe and effective use.

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 with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loaded with the core action, though its brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the tool's behavior, parameters, or expected outcomes, leaving critical gaps for an AI agent to use it correctly.

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 3 parameters (vault, id, enable) are documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter information beyond the tool name, failing to explain what 'id' refers to (e.g., plugin identifier), what 'vault' means, or the purpose of 'enable'. It doesn't compensate for the schema gap.

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 action ('Install') and resource ('a community plugin'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling plugin tools like 'obsidian_plugin_disable', 'obsidian_plugin_enable', or 'obsidian_plugin_info', which all operate on plugins but with different purposes.

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 available in a repository), when not to use it (e.g., if a plugin is already installed), or refer to sibling tools like 'obsidian_plugin_disable' for related operations.

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