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 templates' implies a read-only operation but doesn't specify if it requires permissions, how results are returned (e.g., format, pagination), or any side effects. This is inadequate for a 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 just two words, 'List templates,' which is front-loaded and wastes no space. However, this brevity comes at the cost of clarity and completeness, but as per the dimension, it scores high for being succinct.

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 (a listing tool with 2 parameters), no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what templates are, how to use parameters, or what the output looks like, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively.

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 schema provides no parameter details. The description adds no information about the two parameters (vault and total), such as what they do, their expected values, or how they affect the listing. This fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 templates' restates the tool name 'obsidian_templates' in a slightly different phrasing, making it a tautology. It doesn't specify what kind of templates (e.g., note templates in Obsidian) or provide any distinguishing context from sibling tools like obsidian_files or obsidian_tags, leaving the purpose vague.

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 like obsidian_files, obsidian_search, and obsidian_tags that might overlap in listing content, the description offers no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no usage direction.

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