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 describes the tool's action (generating a skill and creating SKILL.md with specific sections) and implies a write operation, but lacks details on permissions, error handling, or side effects. It adds some context by specifying the file structure, but doesn't cover behavioral traits like whether the operation is idempotent or if it overwrites existing files.

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 starts with a clear purpose statement, details the output (SKILL.md creation), and lists parameters with explanations. Each sentence adds value, with no redundant information. However, it could be slightly more front-loaded by integrating the parameter details more seamlessly, but overall it's efficient and easy to parse.

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 (a write operation with 5 parameters), no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is moderately complete. It explains the tool's action and parameters well, but lacks behavioral context like permissions or error handling. The output schema likely covers return values, so the description doesn't need to explain those, but it should address more usage and safety aspects for a creation tool.

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 5 parameters in the 'Args' section, including examples (e.g., 'profesor-fisica' for 'nombre') and explanations (e.g., 'Descripción breve de lo que hace la skill' for 'descripcion'). This adds significant value beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't cover validation rules or constraints beyond the examples.

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: 'Genera una nueva skill con estructura consistente' (Generates a new skill with consistent structure). It specifies the verb 'genera' and resource 'skill', and mentions the automatic creation of SKILL.md with specific components. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'sincronizar_skills' or 'sugerir_skills_para_vault', which are related to skills but serve different purposes.

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, such as whether the skill already exists or if specific permissions are needed, nor does it refer to sibling tools like 'sincronizar_skills' for managing existing skills. Usage is implied only through the action of creating a new skill, with no explicit context or exclusions provided.

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