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 mentions extracting a random concept but does not describe how randomness is implemented, what format the output takes, whether it requires specific permissions, or any rate limits. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, with the first sentence stating the core purpose, followed by usage context and parameter details. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and low schema coverage, the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose, usage, and parameter semantics but lacks behavioral details like output format hints or error handling, leaving room for improvement in contextual richness.

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 meaningful semantics for the single parameter 'carpeta', explaining it as a specific folder to search in, with an empty value meaning the entire vault. With schema description coverage at 0%, this compensates well by clarifying the parameter's purpose and default behavior, though it could specify folder format or constraints.

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 ('Extrae un concepto aleatorio') and resource ('del vault'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'leer_nota' or 'listar_notas' by emphasizing randomness and surprise. It explicitly mentions use as a 'flashcard sorpresa' for reinforcement or discovery, providing clear differentiation.

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 when to use this tool ('Util para reforzar conocimiento o descubrir notas olvidadas'), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings. It implies usage for random concept extraction versus structured searches, though lacks explicit exclusions.

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