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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool searches for notes modified in a date range, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify whether it returns all matching notes or paginated results, what format the output takes, or if there are any rate limits or authentication requirements. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 purpose clearly, followed by a structured 'Args:' section for parameters. There's no wasted text, and the information is organized for quick parsing. However, it could be slightly more polished (e.g., using consistent formatting).

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 (date-range search), no annotations, and an output schema present (which reduces the need to describe return values), the description is minimally complete. It covers the purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral details like pagination or error handling. With output schema handling return values, the description is adequate but could be more informative about operational constraints.

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 schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description compensates by explaining both parameters: 'fecha_desde' as the start date (YYYY-MM-DD) and 'fecha_hasta' as the optional end date (defaulting to today). This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema, but doesn't cover edge cases like invalid date formats or timezone handling. With 2 parameters and low schema coverage, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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: 'Busca notas modificadas en un rango de fechas' (Search for notes modified in a date range). It specifies the verb (buscar/search) and resource (notas/notes) with a clear scope (modified in a date range). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'buscar_en_notas' (search in notes) or 'listar_notas' (list notes), which might have overlapping functionality.

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 sibling tools like 'buscar_en_notas' (which might search by content) or 'listar_notas' (which might list all notes without date filtering), leaving the agent to infer usage based on the name and parameters alone. No explicit when/when-not or alternative recommendations are provided.

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