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 the tool returns a list of template names, which is basic output info, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error conditions, or whether it's read-only/destructive. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is minimal disclosure.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and resource. The second sentence clarifies the return value efficiently. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points).

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 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema (implied by 'Returns'), the description is adequate but minimal. It covers what the tool does and the return format, but for a tool with no annotations, it lacks behavioral context like safety or constraints, leaving gaps for an agent.

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, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it correctly doesn't mention any. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as it avoids unnecessary parameter discussion.

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 verb ('Lista') and resource ('plantillas disponibles'), specifying they are in the 'carpeta ZZ_Plantillas'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'listar_notas' by focusing on templates, but doesn't explicitly contrast with other listing tools. The purpose is specific and actionable.

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, context, or compare to siblings like 'obtener_lista_etiquetas' or 'listar_notas'. Usage is implied only by the folder location, with no explicit when/when-not instructions.

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