Obsidian MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Reload' implies a mutation operation that restarts the plugin, but the description doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, whether it's destructive to plugin state, what happens if the plugin fails to reload, or what the expected outcome is. The '(for developers)' hint adds minimal context but insufficient behavioral detail.

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 just 5 words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action and includes a contextual hint. Every word earns its place, making it efficient despite being under-specified.

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?

For a mutation tool with 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'reload' means operationally, what parameters are needed, what happens during execution, or what to expect as a result. The '(for developers)' hint is insufficient compensation for these gaps.

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. The description provides no information about the 'id' or 'vault' parameters - it doesn't explain what plugin ID format is expected, what vault parameter does, or whether vault is required. With 2 parameters completely undocumented, the description adds zero parameter semantics.

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 ('Reload') and target ('a plugin'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like obsidian_plugin_disable/enable/install/info by specifying the reload action. However, it doesn't specify what 'reload' entails operationally (e.g., restarting plugin without restarting Obsidian).

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 includes '(for developers)' which provides some context about the intended user, but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like obsidian_plugin_disable/enable, or prerequisites for usage. No explicit when/when-not statements or named alternatives are provided.

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