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 workspace tree' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify what 'workspace tree' means in this context, whether it requires specific permissions, what format the output takes, or any limitations. The description provides minimal behavioral context beyond the basic operation.

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, with no wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action and object, making it easy to parse quickly. This is an example of appropriate minimalism when the tool name itself provides additional context.

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 (0% documented in schema), no annotations, no output schema, and many similar sibling tools, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'workspace tree' means, how parameters affect the output, what the return format is, or when to choose this over other workspace-related tools.

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 ids), the description provides no information about what these parameters mean or how they affect the operation. 'Show workspace tree' doesn't mention parameters at all, leaving the agent to guess about when and how to use vault specification or ids inclusion.

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 workspace tree' clearly indicates a read/display operation on workspace data, which is specific enough to understand the basic function. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from similar siblings like 'obsidian_workspaces' (plural) or 'obsidian_workspace_load', leaving ambiguity about what makes this tool unique.

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 related to workspaces (obsidian_workspaces, obsidian_workspace_load, obsidian_workspace_save), the description offers no context about whether this is for viewing current workspace structure, listing available workspaces, or some other specific use case.

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