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 for behavioral disclosure. 'Show vault info' gives no information about what the tool actually does operationally: whether it returns metadata, statistics, configuration, or something else; whether it has side effects; what permissions are required; or what format the output takes.

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. While this leads to under-specification in other dimensions, from a pure conciseness perspective it's maximally efficient with zero wasted words.

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 tool with 2 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool does beyond its name, doesn't document parameters, doesn't provide usage context among many siblings, and doesn't describe behavior or output.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for both parameters ('vault' and 'info'), the description provides no information about what these parameters mean, what values they accept, or how they affect the tool's behavior. The description doesn't mention parameters at all, leaving them completely undocumented.

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 'Show vault info' restates the tool name 'obsidian_vault' in slightly different words, making it tautological. It doesn't specify what kind of information is shown or how this differs from sibling tools like 'obsidian_folder_info' or 'obsidian_file_info' that also provide information about Obsidian elements.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools that provide information (e.g., obsidian_file_info, obsidian_folder_info, obsidian_workspace), there's no indication of what makes this tool unique or when it should be selected over others.

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