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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions listing notes and includes parameter descriptions, but does not cover important behavioral aspects such as whether this is a read-only operation, how results are formatted (e.g., list of file paths or metadata), pagination, error handling, or performance considerations. The description adds minimal context beyond basic functionality.

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, with the main purpose stated first followed by parameter explanations. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information without redundancy. However, the structure could be slightly improved by integrating parameter details more seamlessly or adding brief usage context.

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 low complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, but has an output schema), the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and parameters adequately, but lacks behavioral details (e.g., output format, error cases) and usage guidelines. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but overall completeness is limited by missing context on when and how to use the tool effectively.

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 meaningful semantics for both parameters: 'carpeta' is explained as a specific folder to explore (empty = vault root), and 'incluir_subcarpetas' indicates whether to include subfolders in the search. With 0% schema description coverage, this compensates well by clarifying parameter purposes and default behaviors, though it lacks format details (e.g., folder path syntax).

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: 'Lista todas las notas (.md) en el vault o en una carpeta específica' (Lists all notes (.md) in the vault or in a specific folder). It specifies the verb ('Lista'), resource ('notas'), and scope ('vault o en una carpeta específica'), but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'buscar_en_notas' or 'obtener_notas_por_tag', which may have overlapping functionality.

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 does not mention sibling tools or contexts where other tools might be more appropriate, such as using 'buscar_en_notas' for keyword searches or 'obtener_notas_por_tag' for tag-based filtering. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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