Obsidian MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it 'lists' unresolved links, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires specific permissions, how it handles large vaults, what format the output takes, or if it has side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to parse 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 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema, and multiple sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain parameters, output format, or usage context, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to invoke this 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 doesn't mention any parameters (vault, total, counts, verbose) or explain their purposes, leaving all four parameters undocumented. This fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('unresolved links in vault'), making the purpose understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'obsidian_links' or 'obsidian_deadends', but the specific focus on 'unresolved' links provides some implicit distinction.

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 like 'obsidian_links' (which might list all links) or 'obsidian_deadends' (which might list broken links). The description lacks context about prerequisites, timing, or comparisons to sibling tools.

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