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. It mentions 'prepend content after frontmatter' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether this modifies files permanently, what permissions are needed, how it handles errors, or what happens to existing content. The 'default: active file' hint is minimal context.

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 very brief (one phrase) and front-loaded with the core action. However, it's arguably too concise given the complexity—5 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations warrant more explanation. The structure is simple but 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?

Given the complexity (5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the tool's behavior, parameter usage, return values, or error handling. For a mutation tool in a rich ecosystem like Obsidian with many siblings, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.

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. It only indirectly references parameters via 'default: active file' (hinting at 'file' parameter) but doesn't explain any of the 5 parameters' purposes, relationships, or semantics. No details on what 'vault', 'path', 'content', or 'inline' mean or how they interact.

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 states the action ('prepend content') and target ('after frontmatter'), which provides a basic purpose. However, it doesn't specify what resource is being modified (Obsidian notes/files) or differentiate from sibling tools like 'obsidian_append' or 'obsidian_daily_prepend'. The phrase 'default: active file' adds some context but doesn't fully clarify the scope.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions 'default: active file' which implies it can target other files, but doesn't explain when to use parameters like 'vault', 'file', or 'path' versus the default. No comparison to sibling tools like 'obsidian_append' or 'obsidian_daily_prepend' is provided.

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