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 effectively describes critical behavioral traits: it's a creation/mutation tool (implied by 'crea'), requires specific prerequisites (reading rules), and has integration with skills and templates. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects like overwriting existing notes or error handling, which leaves a minor gap.

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 structured with a clear purpose statement, critical warnings, usage guidelines, and parameter details. It's front-loaded with essential information. While slightly verbose due to the warning section, every sentence earns its place by providing necessary context and instructions, avoiding 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 complexity (7 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is complete enough. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral context, and parameter semantics thoroughly. The presence of an output schema means return values don't need explanation, and the description addresses all other aspects adequately for a creation tool in this context.

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 compensate. It provides clear semantics for all 7 parameters in the 'Args' section, explaining each one's purpose (e.g., 'titulo: Título de la nota', 'carpeta: Carpeta donde crear la nota'). This adds significant value beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't detail format constraints or examples beyond the template example.

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 'Crea una nueva nota en el vault' (creates a new note in the vault), which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'editar_nota' (edit note) and 'eliminar_nota' (delete note) by focusing on creation. The purpose is unambiguous and well-defined.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, including a critical warning to avoid generic file system tools like 'write_file' and to always use this tool for creating notes in the vault. It also specifies prerequisites (reading global rules with 'leer_contexto_vault' and 'obtener_reglas_globales') and context (checking for applicable skills). This covers when, when-not, and alternatives comprehensively.

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