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. It discloses key behavioral traits: the tool performs a destructive deletion operation and requires confirmation. However, it lacks details on permissions, error handling, or what happens to linked data, leaving gaps in transparency for a mutation tool.

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 and key requirement, followed by structured sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 complexity (a destructive operation with 2 parameters), no annotations, and an output schema (implied by 'Returns'), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage, parameters, and return value, but lacks details on behavioral aspects like error cases or side effects, which holds it back from a perfect score.

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 adds meaning by explaining 'nombre_archivo' as the file name to delete and 'confirmar' as a required confirmation (must be True). This covers both parameters effectively, though it doesn't specify format details like file extensions.

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 a specific verb ('Elimina') and resource ('una nota del vault'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'crear_nota', 'editar_nota', and 'mover_nota' which handle different operations on notes. The title being null doesn't affect this clarity.

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 usage by mentioning 'requiere confirmación', indicating when to use this tool (for deletion with confirmation). However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like 'mover_nota' for archiving instead of deletion, which prevents a perfect score.

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