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. 'List tasks' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify permissions needed, rate limits, pagination, or what happens if parameters conflict. For a tool with 10 parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps unaddressed.

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. It's appropriately sized for a basic listing tool, though it may be too brief given the complexity of parameters. Every word earns its place by stating the core action.

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 high complexity (10 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what tasks are, how they're defined in Obsidian, what the output looks like, or how parameters interact. For a tool with this level of undocumented complexity, a single sentence is insufficient.

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 provides no information about the 10 parameters, and schema description coverage is 0%. Parameters like 'vault', 'file', 'status', 'done', 'todo', etc., are entirely undocumented in both the schema and description. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving parameter meanings unclear.

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 'List tasks in the vault' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('tasks'), but it's vague about scope and lacks sibling differentiation. It doesn't specify whether it lists all tasks or filtered tasks, and with siblings like 'obsidian_task' (singular), it doesn't clarify the distinction between listing multiple tasks vs. a single task operation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'obsidian_task', 'obsidian_search'), the description doesn't indicate whether this is for task-specific queries, how it differs from general search, or any prerequisites like vault access. Usage is implied by the name but not explicitly stated.

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