Obsidian MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool saves a workspace, implying a write operation, but doesn't disclose critical traits such as whether it overwrites existing workspaces, requires specific permissions, affects other Obsidian features, or what happens on failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, clear sentence with zero wasted words—it directly states the tool's purpose without redundancy. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly, earning a top score for conciseness.

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 tool's complexity (a write operation with 2 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover parameter meanings, behavioral details, or return values, leaving significant gaps for the agent to understand how to use the tool effectively in context.

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%, meaning the schema provides no descriptions for the two parameters (vault and name). The description adds no information about these parameters—it doesn't explain what 'vault' or 'name' refer to, their formats, or default behaviors. With low coverage and no compensation in the description, the score reflects inadequate parameter semantics.

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 action ('Save') and resource ('current layout as workspace'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like obsidian_workspace_load (which loads) and obsidian_workspace (which likely lists workspaces). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings, such as obsidian_create or obsidian_save-like operations, which keeps it from a perfect score.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., having an open layout), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like obsidian_workspace_load or obsidian_workspace. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection, resulting in a low score.

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