Obsidian MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behaviors: it creates all necessary parent folders (with a concrete example), mentions placeholder file creation, and describes the return format. It doesn't cover potential errors, permissions, or rate limits, but provides substantial operational context.

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 efficiently structured with clear sections (purpose, usage guidelines, note, returns), each sentence adds value, and it's appropriately sized for a tool with behavioral complexity. No wasted words while maintaining completeness.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good coverage: clear purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral details, and return format description. It could mention error conditions or permissions, but addresses most critical aspects given the 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?

With 67% schema description coverage (2 of 3 parameters documented), the description adds meaningful context beyond the schema. It explains the parent-folder creation behavior for 'folder_path' and mentions placeholder files which relates to 'create_placeholder', though it doesn't address the undocumented 'ctx' parameter. This compensates well for the coverage gap.

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 specific action ('Create a new folder in the vault') and resource ('folder'), including the key behavioral trait of creating parent folders. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_note_tool' by focusing exclusively on folder creation rather than note creation.

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 explicit 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections with concrete scenarios, including a direct alternative ('create notes directly') and a specific sibling tool scenario ('folders are created automatically' with create_note_tool). This gives clear guidance on tool selection.

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