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 effectively describes key behaviors: creates a note in a specific folder (Inbox/00_Bandeja), adds automatic timestamping, and is designed for frictionless quick capture. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like file size constraints, error conditions, or authentication requirements.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized. It begins with a clear purpose statement, provides usage context, then details parameters and return value in separate labeled sections. Every sentence earns its place by adding valuable information 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 (2 parameters, no annotations, but with output schema), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage, parameters, and return value. The output schema existence means the description doesn't need to detail return values. However, it could benefit from mentioning any constraints or edge cases for a more complete picture.

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 description adds significant semantic value beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It clearly explains that 'texto' is the content to capture and 'etiquetas' are optional comma-separated tags, providing essential context that the schema alone lacks. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of parameter descriptions.

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 ('captura rápida', 'crea una nota') and resources ('en la carpeta Inbox (00_Bandeja)'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'crear_nota' by emphasizing frictionless, quick capture to a specific inbox folder with automatic timestamping, rather than general note creation.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Ideal para "guardar esto rápido" sin pensar en ubicación o formato'), providing clear context for its intended use case. It implicitly distinguishes from alternatives by focusing on quick capture versus more deliberate note creation or editing tools in the sibling list.

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