Obsidian MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states what the tool does but lacks behavioral details: it doesn't specify if this is a read-only operation, performance characteristics (e.g., slow for large vaults), or side effects (e.g., caching). The return format is mentioned but without elaboration on structure or pagination.

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 brief and front-loaded: the first sentence defines the purpose, and the second clarifies the return value. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating purpose and returns more clearly). It efficiently conveys essential information in two sentences.

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 no parameters and an output schema exists, the description is adequate but minimal. It explains the purpose and return type but lacks context like when this is useful or behavioral traits. For a simple query tool, this is passable but leaves gaps in usage guidance and transparency.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description correctly omits parameter details, focusing on the tool's function. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as it avoids redundancy while being complete for a parameterless tool.

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: 'Encuentra notas huérfanas' (finds orphaned notes) with the specific criterion 'sin enlaces entrantes ni salientes' (without incoming or outgoing links). It distinguishes from siblings like 'listar_notas' or 'obtener_backlinks' by focusing on disconnected notes. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all possible alternatives, keeping it at 4 instead of 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, timing, or compare with siblings like 'analizar_enlaces' or 'obtener_grafo_local' that might offer related functionality. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.

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