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. 'List properties' implies a read-only operation, but the description doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, what format the output takes, whether results are paginated, or if there are rate limits. For a tool with 9 parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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 4 words, front-loading the core purpose without any wasted words. Every word earns its place, and there's no unnecessary elaboration. This is appropriate conciseness for a tool description, though it may be too brief for adequate completeness.

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 (9 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'properties' means in this context, how parameters interact, what the output format is, or any behavioral constraints. For a tool with this level of parameter complexity and zero structured documentation, the description should do much more to compensate.

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?

With 9 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the schema provides only parameter names and types without any semantic meaning. The description 'List properties in the vault' gives no information about what any of the parameters (vault, file, path, name, sort, format, total, counts, active) actually do or how they affect the listing. This leaves the agent guessing about parameter purposes and relationships.

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 properties in the vault' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('properties in the vault'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this as a listing/querying operation rather than a mutation tool like 'obsidian_property_set' or 'obsidian_property_remove'. However, it doesn't specify what kind of properties (e.g., frontmatter, metadata) or differentiate from similar query tools like 'obsidian_search'.

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. With many sibling tools like 'obsidian_property_read', 'obsidian_search', and 'obsidian_files', there's no indication of when this specific property listing tool is appropriate versus other query or read operations. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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