Obsidian MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it's a potentially destructive operation (implied by 'reemplaza'), includes safety features ('solo_preview' for dry-run, 'limite' for safety), and specifies search behavior ('texto literal, no regex'). However, it doesn't mention permissions needed or rate limits.

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 perfectly structured and front-loaded: first sentence states core purpose, second provides use cases, then organized Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy. The Spanish text is clear and efficient despite conveying substantial information.

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?

For a complex 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the description provides excellent completeness: clear purpose, usage context, parameter semantics, behavioral transparency about safety features, and mentions return values. With an output schema present, it doesn't need to detail return format. The description adequately covers what an agent needs to invoke this tool correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining all 5 parameters in the Args section. Each parameter gets clear semantic explanation beyond type information: 'buscar' specifies 'texto literal, no regex', 'carpeta' explains 'vacío = todo el vault', 'solo_preview' describes its dry-run function, and 'limite' mentions its safety purpose.

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 with specific verbs ('Busca y reemplaza texto') and resources ('en todas las notas del vault'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'buscar_en_notas' (search only) or 'editar_nota' (edit single note). It provides concrete use cases ('corregir enlaces rotos, renombrar tags, o actualizar rutas') that clarify its scope beyond basic search/replace.

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 about when to use this tool ('Útil para corregir enlaces rotos, renombrar tags, o actualizar rutas'), but doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name specific alternatives. It implies usage for bulk operations across the vault, but lacks explicit comparison to siblings like 'editar_nota' for single-note edits.

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