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 effectively discloses behavioral traits: it's a read-only operation ('Lee'), returns a summary ('Devuelve un resumen'), and informs about specific aspects (folder structure, templates, agent configuration). However, it doesn't mention potential side effects like caching or performance impacts, which could be relevant for a first-run 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 well-structured and appropriately sized. It front-loads the core purpose, uses a clear warning for critical usage guidelines, lists key informational points with bullet-like formatting, and ends with the return value. Every sentence earns its place by adding essential value without 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 tool's complexity (a read-only, parameter-less initial exploration tool), the description is complete. It explains the purpose, mandatory usage, specific information provided, and return value. With an output schema present, it doesn't need to detail return values, and the absence of annotations is compensated by the clear behavioral disclosure in the description.

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 appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's purpose and usage. A baseline of 4 is applied as it efficiently handles the parameter-less case without unnecessary details.

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 specific verbs ('Lee' - reads) and resources ('estructura general del vault y estadísticas clave' - general vault structure and key statistics). It distinguishes itself from siblings by being a mandatory first-step tool for vault exploration, unlike other tools that perform specific operations like creating, editing, or analyzing notes.

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 usage guidelines with a mandatory warning: 'Esta debe ser SIEMPRE la PRIMERA herramienta que ejecutes al comenzar cualquier tarea con el vault.' It clearly states when to use this tool (first for any vault task) and implies when not to use it (after initial exploration). The context of informing about folder structure, templates, and agent configuration further guides its application.

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