Obsidian MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Rename a file' implies a mutation operation, but it doesn't describe permissions needed, whether renames are reversible, error conditions (e.g., if file doesn't exist), or side effects. The default behavior hint is helpful but insufficient for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 zero wasted words - a single phrase that's front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly despite its brevity.

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?

For a mutation tool with 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens during renaming, how parameters interact, what errors might occur, or what the tool returns. The default behavior hint is useful but doesn't compensate for the significant gaps.

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 for undocumented parameters. It only mentions 'default: active file' which relates to the 'file' parameter, but doesn't explain the four parameters (vault, file, path, name) or their relationships. The required 'name' parameter gets no explanation beyond the schema's title.

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 tool's purpose: 'Rename a file' specifies the verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like obsidian_move (which moves files) and obsidian_create (which creates files), though it doesn't explicitly mention these alternatives. The 'default: active file' adds useful context but doesn't fully differentiate from all siblings.

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: 'default: active file' implies usage when no file is specified, but offers no explicit when-to-use rules, alternatives (like obsidian_move for moving files), prerequisites, or exclusions. It lacks context on when this tool is preferred over other file modification tools.

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