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 states this is a read operation, which implies it's non-destructive, but doesn't mention other traits like error handling (e.g., what happens if the file doesn't exist), authentication needs, rate limits, or return format. For a tool with zero 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 ('Read a file from a vault') that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. It avoids redundancy and wastes no space, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 (a read operation with 3 parameters) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., file content, metadata, or errors), behavioral aspects like error conditions, or how it differs from siblings. For a tool with no structured output information, the description should provide more context to be fully helpful.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, providing clear documentation for all three parameters (vault, filepath, parseFrontmatter). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining the format of 'vault' or 'filepath' or detailing the effects of 'parseFrontmatter'. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 ('Read') and resource ('a file from a vault'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this from siblings like 'write_file' (write vs. read) and 'list_files' (list vs. read), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_active_file' (which likely reads the currently active file). The description is specific but could be more precise about sibling differentiation.

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 when to choose 'get_file' over 'get_active_file' (for reading a specific file vs. the active one) or 'list_files' (for listing vs. reading content), nor does it specify prerequisites like needing a valid vault identifier. Usage is implied by the name and purpose but lacks explicit context.

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