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. 'Get tag info' only indicates a read operation without specifying what information is returned (e.g., structured data, counts, file lists), whether it requires specific permissions, or if there are rate limits. The description fails to disclose any behavioral traits beyond the basic read intent, leaving critical operational details unknown.

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 at just three words, which is appropriately brief for a simple-sounding tool. However, this brevity comes at the cost of under-specification—it's too minimal to be helpful. While front-loaded, it lacks the necessary detail to be fully effective, though it avoids unnecessary verbosity.

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 (4 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain what the tool returns, how parameters affect behavior, or any operational constraints. For a tool that likely interacts with a note-taking system (Obsidian) and has multiple configuration options, the description fails to provide the minimal context needed for effective use.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 4 parameters (vault, name, total, verbose) are documented in the schema. The description 'Get tag info' adds no meaning about these parameters—it doesn't explain what 'vault' refers to, what 'name' should contain, or the purpose of 'total' and 'verbose' flags. With zero compensation for the lack of schema documentation, the description fails to provide any parameter semantics.

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 'Get tag info' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'obsidian_tag'. It provides a vague purpose without specifying what kind of tag information is retrieved (e.g., metadata, usage statistics, associated files) or how it differs from sibling tools like 'obsidian_tags' (which likely lists tags). The description lacks the specificity needed to distinguish this tool's function from alternatives.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions. Given the presence of sibling tools like 'obsidian_tags' (which likely lists all tags) and 'obsidian_search' (which might search by tag), the absence of usage guidelines leaves the agent guessing about the appropriate scenarios for invoking this specific tool.

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