Obsidian MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it validates skills for specific issues and can apply corrections based on the 'actualizar' parameter. However, it doesn't mention side effects (e.g., whether changes are reversible), performance aspects (e.g., time/rate limits), or error handling, which are gaps for a tool that modifies content.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized: it starts with the core purpose, lists specific problems detected, and explains the key parameter. Each sentence adds value without redundancy. It could be slightly more concise by integrating the parameter explanation into the main text, but overall it's efficient and front-loaded.

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 (validation and optional correction), no annotations, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose, validation targets, and parameter behavior. However, it lacks details on scope (e.g., which skills are validated) and error cases, which could enhance completeness for the agent.

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 schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds clear semantics: 'actualizar' controls whether corrections are applied (True) or only reported (False). This goes beyond the schema's boolean type, providing crucial context for the agent's decision-making. Since there are no other parameters, this is sufficient.

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: 'Sincroniza y valida las skills existentes' (synchronizes and validates existing skills). It specifies the verb (synchronize/validate) and resource (existing skills), making it distinct from siblings like 'generar_skill' (create new) or 'refrescar_cache_skills' (refresh cache). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings, such as 'sincronizar_registro_tags', which might have overlapping validation aspects.

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 through the listed problem detections (e.g., missing references, incorrect frontmatter), suggesting it's for maintaining skill integrity. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'refrescar_cache_skills' or 'generar_skill', and doesn't specify prerequisites or exclusions, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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