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 mentions the return type ('matching files and context') and search syntax, but lacks details on behavioral traits like pagination, error handling, performance limits, or authentication needs. For a search tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 essential details in a second sentence. Every word earns its place—no fluff or redundancy—making it highly efficient 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 4 parameters with full schema coverage but no output schema and no annotations, the description is adequate for basic use but incomplete. It explains what the tool does and the query syntax, but lacks details on output structure, error cases, or advanced behavioral context, which are important for a search operation.

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 all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by reiterating 'Obsidian's full search syntax' for the query, but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema 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 ('Search') and resource ('the vault for text'), specifies what it returns ('matching files and context'), and distinguishes it from siblings like list_files (which lists without searching) and read_note (which reads specific files). The mention of 'Obsidian's full search syntax' further clarifies the scope.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('Search the vault for text') and implies alternatives by specifying 'Obsidian's full search syntax,' suggesting it's for complex queries. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., vs. list_files for simple listing) or name specific sibling alternatives, keeping it from a perfect score.

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