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 the tool reads a property value, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify error handling (e.g., if the property or file doesn't exist), return format, or any side effects. This leaves gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in edge cases, making it insufficient for safe agent invocation.

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 with a single sentence that front-loads the core action ('Read a property value from a file') and includes a helpful note on defaults. There is no wasted language, making it efficient and easy to parse, though this 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 of a property-reading tool with 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter interactions, error conditions, and return values, which are crucial for an agent to use this tool effectively in a file system context with siblings like 'obsidian_property_set'.

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 by explaining parameters. It only implies the 'file' parameter through 'default: active file' and mentions 'property value' without clarifying the 'name' parameter. Key parameters like 'vault' and 'path' are undocumented, leaving their purpose ambiguous. This fails to add meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema.

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 ('Read a property value') and resource ('from a file'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'obsidian_property_set' or 'obsidian_property_remove' by focusing on reading rather than modifying properties. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'obsidian_properties' (which might list all properties) or 'obsidian_read' (which might read file content), leaving some ambiguity.

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 minimal guidance by noting the default behavior ('default: active file'), but it lacks explicit instructions on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'obsidian_properties' or 'obsidian_read'. No context about prerequisites, such as file existence or property formatting, is mentioned, leaving usage unclear in complex scenarios.

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