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 moving/renaming and folder creation, but lacks details on permissions, error handling (e.g., what happens if 'origen' doesn't exist), side effects, or rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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, starting with the core purpose. The Args and Returns sections are structured but slightly verbose; every sentence earns its place by explaining parameters and outcomes clearly, with minimal waste.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, mutation operation) and no annotations, the description is fairly complete: it covers purpose, parameters with examples, and return values. However, it lacks behavioral details like error cases or side effects, and while an output schema exists, more context on usage could enhance completeness.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining all three parameters: 'origen' (current relative path with example), 'destino' (new relative path with example), and 'crear_carpetas' (create folders if missing with default). It adds essential meaning beyond the bare schema, clarifying usage and 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 specific action ('Mueve o renombra') and resource ('una nota dentro del vault'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'crear_nota' (create), 'editar_nota' (edit), and 'eliminar_nota' (delete). It precisely defines the tool's function as moving or renaming notes within a vault.

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 scenarios where moving is preferred over renaming with 'editar_nota', or how it relates to sibling tools like 'sugerir_ubicacion' (suggest location) or 'listar_notas' (list notes). 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.