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 mentions scanning usage patterns and returning suggestions, but does not specify whether this is a read-only operation, potential performance impacts, rate limits, or authentication needs. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior and safety.

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 concise and well-structured, using two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and process. It avoids unnecessary details and is front-loaded with the main action. However, it could be slightly improved by integrating usage guidelines without adding bulk.

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, the description does not need to explain return values. However, with no annotations and a focus on analysis and suggestions, it lacks details on behavioral traits like data handling or limitations. The description is adequate for a simple tool but misses opportunities to clarify context, such as how suggestions are generated or any dependencies.

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 information is needed. The description does not add parameter details, which is appropriate here. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as the schema fully covers the inputs without requiring additional explanation.

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: analyzing a vault to suggest personalized skills based on usage patterns. It specifies the verb 'analiza' (analyzes) and resource 'vault' with the outcome 'sugiere skills personalizadas' (suggests personalized skills). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'generar_skill' or 'sincronizar_skills', which might have overlapping functions, so it misses full sibling distinction.

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 lacks explicit instructions on when or when not to invoke it, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'generar_skill' or 'estadisticas_vault'. Usage is implied through the action described but without clear contextual boundaries.

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