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. 'Analiza' implies a read-only analysis operation, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it requires specific permissions, what format the analysis output takes (e.g., report, list, graph), performance characteristics, or error conditions. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 in Spanish that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a no-parameter tool and front-loads the core action ('Analiza'). Every word earns its place, 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 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists (which should document return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context about what 'analiza' means in practice (e.g., depth of analysis, output format), and with no annotations, it doesn't cover behavioral aspects. For a simple analysis tool, it meets basic needs but leaves room for improvement in clarifying the analysis scope and results.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (since there are no parameters to describe). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics beyond stating the analysis scope ('en el vault'), which it does. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as the schema fully covers the parameter situation (none), and the description doesn't introduce confusion.

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 'Analiza los enlaces internos en el vault' clearly states the action (analiza/analyzes) and target (enlaces internos/internal links in the vault). It distinguishes from siblings like 'obtener_backlinks' (which might get backlinks) or 'encontrar_notas_huerfanas' (which finds orphaned notes) by focusing on analysis of internal links. However, it doesn't specify what 'analiza' entails (e.g., statistical analysis, visualization, or listing), making it slightly less specific than a perfect 5.

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 prerequisites, context for analysis, or differentiate from similar tools like 'obtener_backlinks' or 'obtener_grafo_local' (which might handle link graphs). Without any usage context, the agent must infer based on tool names alone.

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