Obsidian MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it modifies notes (implied by 'añade'), describes the insertion algorithm (searching for headings and placing content before next heading of same or higher level), and mentions conditional section creation. However, it doesn't cover error handling, permissions, or what happens if multiple matching sections exist.

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 a clear purpose statement, detailed behavioral explanation, and organized parameter documentation. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy. The use of sections (Args, Returns) enhances readability.

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's moderate complexity (section-aware insertion with conditional creation), no annotations, and the presence of an output schema (implied by 'Returns'), the description is largely complete. It explains the core algorithm and parameters well but could benefit from more behavioral context about edge cases. The output schema handles return values adequately.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides meaningful explanations for all 4 parameters: 'nombre_archivo' as the note name, 'seccion' as the section name with examples, 'contenido' as content to insert, and 'crear_si_no_existe' explaining the conditional creation behavior. This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema types.

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 ('añade contenido debajo de una sección específica') and resource ('de una nota'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'agregar_a_nota' (which likely adds to the entire note) and 'editar_nota' (which may edit arbitrary parts). It precisely describes the insertion behavior relative to heading levels.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: when content needs to be added below a specific section heading in a note, with precise positioning logic. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings, but the context strongly implies it's for section-specific additions rather than general note editing.

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