Obsidian MCP Server

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose critical behaviors: whether this overwrites existing properties, requires file write permissions, handles errors (e.g., invalid file), or returns any output. For a mutation tool with 6 parameters, this is inadequate.

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 with zero waste, front-loading the core action. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though 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 no annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and 6 parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on mutation effects, error handling, parameter usage, and output, making it insufficient for safe and effective tool invocation in a complex Obsidian context.

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 but adds no parameter details. It implies 'file' parameter usage with 'default: active file', but doesn't explain other parameters (vault, name, value, type, path) or their relationships (e.g., file vs. path). This leaves most parameters undocumented.

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 ('Set a property') and target ('on a file'), with a specific default behavior ('default: active file'). It distinguishes from obvious siblings like 'obsidian_property_read' and 'obsidian_property_remove' by specifying a write operation, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all mutation tools like 'obsidian_create' or 'obsidian_append'.

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 with the default file behavior, but lacks explicit when-to-use rules, prerequisites (e.g., file must exist), or alternatives (e.g., when to use 'obsidian_property_remove' instead). No context on sibling tools like 'obsidian_properties' (list properties) is given.

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