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 explains what happens when the language parameter is omitted (searches for manual subtitles in original language, fails on auto-generated ones) and mentions error messages in returns. However, it doesn't cover important behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, or what specific error conditions might occur.

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 with clear sections (Args, Returns) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value, though the Spanish language might require translation for some agents. The structure is efficient with no wasted words.

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 that there's an output schema (which handles return value documentation) and the description provides good parameter semantics despite 0% schema coverage, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the core functionality, parameter behaviors, and return expectations adequately for a retrieval 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?

The description adds significant value beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that the 'url' parameter accepts either a YouTube URL or video ID, and clarifies the 'language' parameter with examples ('es', 'en') and behavior when omitted. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 ('Obtiene' - gets/obtains) and resource ('transcripción de un video de YouTube'), making it immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from all sibling tools, which appear to be note/vault management tools, by focusing exclusively on YouTube transcripts.

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. While it's clearly distinct from the sibling tools (which are all note/vault management related), there's no mention of potential alternative tools for similar functions or specific scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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