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. It mentions a prerequisite ('requires REST API plugin'), which is helpful context. However, it doesn't describe what happens during execution—such as whether it's a read-only or destructive operation, potential side effects, error handling, or what the response looks like. For a tool that executes commands with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 that directly states the tool's purpose and a key prerequisite. It's front-loaded with the main action and avoids unnecessary details, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place without redundancy.

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 of executing commands in Obsidian, the lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what types of commands can be executed, potential risks or side effects, or what the tool returns. For a tool that could perform various operations (from reads to writes), more context is needed to ensure safe and effective use.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (vault, commandId, args) with descriptions. The description doesn't add any additional meaning or context about these parameters beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of command IDs or typical argument structures. This meets the baseline score when schema coverage is high.

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 ('Execute') and resource ('an Obsidian command'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its siblings like 'append_content' or 'write_file', which also perform actions in Obsidian. The mention of 'requires REST API plugin' adds useful context but doesn't specifically distinguish the tool's unique function.

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 mentions a prerequisite ('requires REST API plugin'), but doesn't explain scenarios where executing a command is appropriate compared to other tools like 'write_file' or 'search_files'. There are no explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives provided.

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