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 states the tool retrieves content from a SKILL.md file, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify whether this requires permissions, what happens if the skill doesn't exist, or any rate limits. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 concise with two sentences: one stating the purpose and another explaining the parameter with an example. It's front-loaded with the main function, and the example ('ej: 'escritor'') adds clarity without unnecessary detail. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured.

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 has an output schema (which handles return values), 1 parameter with good semantic coverage in the description, and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. However, for a tool that likely interacts with a file system or database (implied by 'SKILL.md'), it lacks details on error handling, authentication, or behavioral traits, leaving room for improvement in 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?

The description adds meaningful semantics for the single parameter 'nombre', explaining it as 'El nombre de la carpeta de la skill (ej: 'escritor')' which clarifies it's the folder name of the skill, not the file name or another identifier. With 0% schema description coverage, this compensates well by providing essential context beyond the bare schema type (string).

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 contenido de una Skill específica (SKILL.md)' which translates to 'Gets the content of a specific Skill (SKILL.md)'. This specifies the verb ('obtiene' - gets) and resource ('Skill específica' - specific Skill), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'leer_nota' (read note) or 'leer_contexto_vault' (read vault context), which might 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 doesn't mention any prerequisites, context for usage, or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'leer_nota' or 'generar_skill'. The agent must infer usage based solely on the tool name and description without explicit direction.

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