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 of behavioral disclosure and does so comprehensively. It explains the probabilistic nature of suggestions, the confidence scoring system, the fallback behavior to rules, the basis in existing similar notes, and the non-infallible nature requiring user judgment. This goes well beyond basic functional description to cover important behavioral traits.

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 with clear sections (purpose, agent instructions, parameters, returns) and front-loads the core purpose. While comprehensive, it could be slightly more concise - some phrasing could be tightened without losing clarity. Every sentence earns its place by adding important information, but minor verbosity keeps it from a perfect score.

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 (probabilistic suggestions with confidence scoring), lack of annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, the description provides excellent completeness. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral traits, parameter semantics, and return values. The presence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to detail return structure, and it appropriately focuses on semantic context.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation in the schema, and it does so effectively. It explicitly lists and explains all three parameters (titulo, contenido, etiquetas) in the 'Args' section, providing clear semantic meaning for each that isn't available from the schema alone. The description adds significant value beyond the bare schema.

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: 'Sugiere carpetas candidatas para una nota nueva según su contenido y tags.' This specifies the verb (sugerir/suggest), resource (carpetas/folders), and scope (para una nota nueva/for a new note). It distinguishes from siblings like 'mover_nota' (move note) or 'crear_nota' (create note) by focusing on folder suggestions based on content analysis rather than direct note manipulation.

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 guidelines in the 'IMPORTANTE PARA AGENTES DE IA' section, detailing when to use it (for folder suggestions based on note content/tags), how to evaluate results (consider confidence scores and user context), and when to use alternatives (if confidence is low, ask the user directly). It also clarifies what the tool is NOT (definitive answers) and mentions fallback mechanisms.

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