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. It discloses a prerequisite (REST API plugin) and that it retrieves the 'currently active' file, which adds some behavioral context. However, it doesn't cover other important traits like whether it's read-only, what happens if no file is active, error handling, or response format, leaving significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 states the purpose and a key prerequisite. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the main action, though it could be slightly more structured by separating the prerequisite into a second sentence for clarity.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It mentions a prerequisite but lacks details on behavior, error cases, or return values. For a tool that retrieves stateful information (the active file), more context is needed to understand how it operates and what to expect, making it inadequate for the complexity.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the single parameter 'vault' with its description. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining what a 'vault identifier' is or how it relates to the active file. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Get') and resource ('currently active file in Obsidian'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_file' or 'open_file', which likely retrieve or open files differently, so it misses full sibling 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?

The description implies usage when the active file is needed, and mentions a prerequisite ('requires REST API plugin'), providing some context. But it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_file' or 'open_file', leaving usage guidelines partially implied rather than fully clear.

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