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 of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the search method (ripgrep or Python fallback) and the AND logic for multiple terms, which is useful. However, it doesn't mention performance aspects (e.g., speed, rate limits), error handling, or what happens with empty results, leaving gaps for a search tool.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by key behavioral details (multiple terms with AND logic), and then a structured parameter explanation. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 (search with three parameters), no annotations, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage context, and parameter semantics well, but lacks some behavioral details like error cases or performance limits.

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 fully compensate. It clearly explains all three parameters: 'texto' (text to search, can include multiple words), 'carpeta' (specific folder to search, empty means entire vault), and 'solo_titulos' (search only in note titles). This adds essential meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 tool's purpose: searching text in vault notes using intelligent search (ripgrep or Python fallback). It specifies the resource (notes in the vault) and the operation (searching with intelligent algorithms), distinguishing it from siblings like 'buscar_notas_por_fecha' (search by date) or 'leer_nota' (read a note).

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 usage: it supports multiple search terms with AND logic (e.g., 'nas ssh' finds notes containing both words) and allows optional folder filtering. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'buscar_notas_por_fecha' or 'obtener_notas_por_tag', leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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