Obsidian MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe important behavioral aspects like whether it's read-only (implied but not stated), performance characteristics, error conditions, or what happens with invalid note names. The description is functional but lacks operational transparency.

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 perfectly structured and concise - a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant information. The Spanish language is used consistently and efficiently throughout.

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?

For a single-parameter query tool with an output schema (which handles return value documentation), the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does, what the parameter means, and what it returns. The main gap is lack of behavioral context about performance, errors, or limitations, but given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, it's mostly adequate.

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 provides clear semantic meaning for the single parameter 'nombre_nota' - it's the name of the note (with or without .md extension). With 0% schema description coverage, this description fully compensates by explaining what the parameter represents and its format flexibility, though it doesn't specify constraints like maximum length or character restrictions.

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) and resource ('todas las notas que enlazan a la nota especificada' - all notes linking to the specified note). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'leer_nota' (read note) or 'analizar_enlaces' (analyze links) by focusing specifically on backlinks.

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 implies usage context - when you need to find notes that link to a specific note. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'analizar_enlaces' or 'obtener_grafo_local', nor does it provide exclusion criteria or prerequisites for use.

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