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 generates a summary, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify whether it requires permissions, how it handles data (e.g., aggregation methods), or any rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior 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 core purpose, followed by a brief parameter explanation. There's no wasted text, and every sentence adds value. The structure is clear and efficient, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 (one parameter, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose and parameter semantics adequately. Since an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, it lacks behavioral details (e.g., how the summary is generated), which slightly reduces completeness for a tool with no annotations.

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 context for the single parameter 'dias' by explaining it as 'Número de días hacia atrás para analizar (por defecto 7)' (Number of days backward to analyze, default 7). Since schema description coverage is 0% (the schema only defines type and default without description), this compensates well by clarifying the parameter's purpose and default value. With only one parameter, this is sufficient for a high score.

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: 'Genera un resumen de la actividad reciente en el vault' (Generates a summary of recent activity in the vault). It specifies the verb 'genera' (generates) and the resource 'actividad reciente en el vault' (recent activity in the vault), which is distinct from sibling tools like 'estadisticas_vault' or 'listar_notas'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'leer_contexto_vault' might overlap in scope), so it's not a perfect 5.

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, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'estadisticas_vault' or 'buscar_notas_por_fecha', which might serve similar purposes. The agent must infer usage based on the name and description alone, with no explicit context.

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