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. It states the tool performs a removal operation, implying mutation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as permissions required, whether the removal is reversible, error handling (e.g., if the property doesn't exist), or side effects. The description is minimal and lacks critical context for a mutation tool, leaving significant gaps in transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and includes a useful default note. There is no wasted language, and it effectively communicates the essential information in a compact form, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 mutation tool with 4 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It lacks details on parameters, behavioral implications, error cases, and return values, leaving the agent with inadequate information to use the tool correctly and safely in various contexts.

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 description mentions 'default: active file', which hints at the 'file' parameter's behavior but does not explain the four parameters (vault, name, file, path) or their relationships. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate by adding meaningful semantics beyond the schema, leaving parameters largely undocumented and unclear in usage.

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 ('Remove') and target ('a property from a file'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'obsidian_property_set' (which sets properties) and 'obsidian_property_read' (which reads properties), though it doesn't explicitly mention these alternatives. The purpose is not tautological with the name, as it elaborates on the action and 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 implied usage by specifying 'default: active file', suggesting it can be used without specifying a file. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'obsidian_property_set' for modification or 'obsidian_delete' for file deletion), and does not mention prerequisites or exclusions. The context is clear but incomplete for optimal agent decision-making.

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