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 discloses critical behavioral traits: the tool is mandatory for AI agents, must be invoked before write operations, and the rules contain restrictions (e.g., no emojis, allowed formats). This adds value beyond basic functionality, though it doesn't detail response format or error handling.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage guidelines in a clear warning format. Every sentence adds value: the first states what it does, the second emphasizes mandatory usage, and the third explains why (critical restrictions). It could be slightly more concise by merging sentences, but it's well-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's complexity (simple read operation), no annotations, 0 parameters, and an output schema exists (so return values are documented elsewhere), the description is complete. It covers purpose, mandatory usage context, and behavioral implications (restrictions), which is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on usage context. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as it avoids unnecessary details.

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 'obtiene' (gets) and the resource 'reglas globales del Agente' (agent's global rules), with the specific file path (.agent/REGLAS_GLOBALES.md) provided. It distinguishes this from siblings by focusing on reading global rules rather than notes, tags, or other operations. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from tools like 'leer_nota' or 'obtener_instrucciones_agente' in terms of content type.

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 explicit usage guidance: it states this tool is 'OBLIGATORIO' (mandatory) for AI agents and must be used 'ANTES de realizar cualquier escritura o modificación en el vault' (BEFORE any writing or modification in the vault). It clearly defines when to use it (before write operations) and implies when not to use it (for other purposes like reading notes). No alternatives are named, but the context is unambiguous.

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