Obsidian MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a list operation, implying it's read-only and non-destructive, but doesn't address permissions, rate limits, output format, or error conditions. For a tool with three parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 three words, with no wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no unnecessary elaboration, making it efficient for quick scanning.

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 has three parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the parameters do, what the return value looks like, or any behavioral constraints. For a tool with this complexity level, the description provides insufficient context for effective use.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the three parameters (vault, filter, versions) are documented in the schema. The description provides no information about these parameters—not even mentioning their existence—failing to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 'List enabled plugins' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('enabled plugins'), providing a basic understanding of the tool's function. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'obsidian_plugins' (which likely lists all plugins), making the purpose somewhat vague in context.

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 sibling tools like 'obsidian_plugins' (for listing all plugins) or 'obsidian_plugin_info' (for detailed plugin information), nor does it specify any prerequisites or exclusions for usage.

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