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. It states the tool reads file contents, which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify permissions, error handling (e.g., if the file doesn't exist), or output format (e.g., plain text, markdown). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose ('Read file contents'), followed by a brief clarification in parentheses. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or unnecessary information, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain the parameters, return values, or behavioral nuances like error cases. While it states the purpose clearly, it lacks details needed for reliable tool invocation in a broader 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?

The input schema has 3 parameters (vault, file, path) with 0% description coverage, and the tool description doesn't mention any parameters. This fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation, leaving users unclear about what these parameters do, how they interact (e.g., whether 'file' or 'path' takes precedence), or their expected formats.

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 file contents') and resource ('file'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'obsidian_append' or 'obsidian_create' by focusing on reading rather than modifying content. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other read-related tools like 'obsidian_daily_read' or 'obsidian_property_read', which slightly limits sibling differentiation.

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 guidance by specifying the default behavior ('default: active file'), suggesting it can be used without parameters for the active file. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'obsidian_daily_read' for daily notes or 'obsidian_property_read' for metadata, and doesn't mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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