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 states the tool opens a graph view and requires a plugin, but lacks details on behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only or interactive operation, what happens if the vault doesn't exist, or any side effects like UI changes. The description is minimal and leaves key behaviors unspecified.

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 requirement. It is front-loaded with the main action and has no wasted words, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 has no annotations, no output schema, and a simple input schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on what the tool returns (e.g., success/failure, graph data), error conditions, or detailed behavioral context. For a tool that likely interacts with a UI or system, more completeness is needed to guide 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'vault' documented as 'Vault identifier'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as explaining what a vault is or format examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 ('Open graph view') and target ('in Obsidian'), which is specific and understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'open_file' or 'get_active_file' that also interact with Obsidian files/views, missing explicit 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 mentions a prerequisite ('requires REST API plugin'), which provides some context, but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'open_file' or other sibling tools. There are no explicit when/when-not statements or named alternatives.

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