Getting it into your agent
One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.
npx skills add cyanheads/obsidian-mcp-server --skill tool-defs-analysisgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/cyanheads/obsidian-mcp-serverWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/skills/cyanheads/obsidian-mcp-server/tool-defs-analysis)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/cyanheads/obsidian-mcp-server/tool-defs-analysis"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/cyanheads/obsidian-mcp-server/tool-defs-analysis/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/cyanheads/obsidian-mcp-server/tool-defs-analysis"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/cyanheads/obsidian-mcp-server/tool-defs-analysis.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 1 finding, up to medium
These are SkillSpector’s own severities. On a checked sample its high-severity flags on skills were ~96% false positives — a documented command, a public API, a “never do X” rule — so we show them as a caution to read, not a verdict. Why →
- medium Memory Poisoning · line 249 Skill attempts to fill the context window with filler content, displacing legitimate instructions and safety constraints. This can degrade agent performance or bypass safety boundaries.Fix: Implement context-window management that detects and rejects padding or stuffing attempts. Prioritize system instructions over user-injected content.
What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00177 | $0.04277 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00088 | $0.02139 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00035 | $0.00855 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00018 | $0.00428 |
Grade A, and why
tool-defs-analysis scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 10d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
Copies of this mod
8 near-identical copies found in the catalogue:
- tool-defs-analysis — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
- tool-defs-analysis — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
- tool-defs-analysis — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
- tool-defs-analysis — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
- tool-defs-analysis — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
- tool-defs-analysis — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
- tool-defs-analysis — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
- tool-defs-analysis — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 280 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Context
Every string in a tool/resource/prompt definition is part of an LLM-facing API contract. The model reads the description, every parameter .describe(), the output schema, the recovery hints — and decides what to call and how. Definition language drifts: an internal mapping leaks into a parameter doc during a fix, a self-referential output description survives a refactor, a default that suited the developer at scaffold time stays after the typical call shape changes.
This skill is the review-time pass for that drift. Read each definition the way a mid-tier model with no project context would — can it pick the tool, fill the fields, and recover from errors using only the rendered schema?
| Skill | Lens |
|---|---|
design-mcp-server |
Authoring rules at write-time |
field-test |
Behavior testing + a narrow 3-category leak audit |
security-pass |
Injection, scopes, input sinks |
tool-defs-analysis (this) |
LLM-facing language across the existing surface |
field-test already audits descriptions for implementation leaks, meta-coaching, and consumer-aware phrasing during its catalog step — that's a fast shallow pass alongside live tool calls. This skill is the deeper review: 16 categories, every field, every recovery hint, every default value, with file:line citations — plus a cross-surface pass for the drift no single file shows.
Read-only. This skill produces a report; the maintainer applies fixes. While running it, do not run git, do not stage or commit, do not update the changelog, do not run devcheck, do not invoke wrapup or release workflows. Fixes flow through the normal authoring path (edit the definition, then re-run this skill if you want to verify).
When to Use
- After a polish session or refactor that touched definitions
- Before a release, alongside
polish-docs-metaandsecurity-pass - When the user says "review my tool definitions", "audit descriptions", "are my tool descriptions any good"
- After scaffolding a new server but before it ships
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 10d ago First seen · 280 lines · 177 tokens per session scan A 1d1f27b114eb
tool-defs-analysis is a skill published in the GitHub repository cyanheads/obsidian-mcp-server (676 stars, last pushed today), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 177 tokens to every session and 4,277 once invoked, about $0.0009 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
knowledge-base-management
A lifecycle system for managing an Obsidian knowledge base, which is a folder of linked notes. It organizes raw material, AI-maintained wiki pages, and generated views into separate layers.
pkm-session-end
Use when wrapping up a work session — creates devlog entry, captures undocumented decisions/research/debugging, audits link health of session work, and updates project index. Primarily used via the pkm-capture agent.
pkm-write
Use when writing to the vault — creating new notes (vaultwrite), editing existing notes (vaultedit, vaultappend, vaultupdatefrontmatter). Handles duplicate checking, link discovery, annotations, and index updates for new notes. Provides guidelines for modifications.
triage-tasks
Use when you want to review and batch-update open vault task statuses for the current project or across all projects.
pkm-explore
Use when researching what the vault knows about a topic — performs graph + semantic exploration with gap analysis to map existing knowledge and find missing connections. Primarily used via the vault-explorer agent. Not for routine session-start context loading (hooks handle that).
tackle-task
Use when starting work on a specific vault task, when a task title or path is mentioned, or when coming from triage output.