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 states the tool returns a 'Visualización del grafo local de la nota' (Visualization of the note's local graph), which hints at a visual output rather than raw data. However, it doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, performance implications (e.g., for large graphs), or error handling. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic action.

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: the first sentence states the purpose clearly, followed by structured 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. There's no wasted text. However, the Spanish language might add slight complexity for non-Spanish agents, but it's still efficient and well-organized.

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 (2 parameters, no annotations, but has an output schema), the description is partially complete. It explains the parameters and return value ('Visualización del grafo local'), but lacks behavioral context (e.g., safety, performance). The output schema existence means the description doesn't need to detail return values, but it should still cover usage and behavioral aspects more thoroughly for a tool that likely involves graph traversal.

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 includes an 'Args' section that explains both parameters: 'nombre_nota' (central note name) and 'profundidad' (depth levels, with 1 meaning direct connections only). Since schema description coverage is 0%, this compensates well by providing clear semantics. It doesn't cover all possible nuances (e.g., format of 'nombre_nota', range for 'profundidad'), but it adds substantial value beyond the bare schema.

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: 'Obtiene el grafo local de una nota: enlaces salientes y entrantes' (Gets the local graph of a note: outgoing and incoming links). It specifies the verb ('obtiene') and resource ('grafo local de una nota'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'obtener_backlinks' by focusing on both directions and graph visualization. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'analizar_enlaces' or other graph-related tools.

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 when this tool is appropriate compared to siblings like 'obtener_backlinks' (which might get backlinks only), 'analizar_enlaces' (which might analyze links differently), or 'leer_nota' (which reads note content). There's no context about prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases.

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