obsidian-ts-mcp

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 the return type ('markdown content including frontmatter') and parameter requirements, but lacks details on error handling, permissions, or performance aspects like rate limits. This is adequate but has gaps for a read operation.

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 in the first sentence, followed by a concise usage instruction. Both sentences are essential—none are redundant—making it efficiently structured and easy to parse.

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 low complexity (simple read operation), no annotations, no output schema, and high schema coverage, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, return type, and parameter guidance, but could improve by mentioning error cases or output structure more explicitly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters fully. The description adds minimal value by reiterating the need for at least one parameter, but does not provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema specifies, aligning with the baseline for high coverage.

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 ('Read') and resource ('full contents of a note'), specifying it returns 'markdown content including frontmatter'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'append_to_note' or 'create_note' by focusing solely on reading without modification.

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?

It provides explicit usage context by stating 'Provide at least one of 'file' or 'path' to identify the note', which guides parameter selection. However, it does not specify when to use this tool over alternatives like 'read_property' or 'search_vault', leaving some ambiguity in sibling differentiation.

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