Find notes in your Obsidian vault that contain a given tag, with or without a leading #, and cap results with a limit. Use it to gather related notes for review or editing.
Search notes containing a tag (with or without leading #).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tag | Yes | ||
| limit | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hits | Yes | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| total | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the tag may be given with or without a leading '#', but says nothing about read-only nature, result ordering, pagination, or how many results are returned.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the parenthetical format hint is placed right after the parameter it qualifies. It is efficient, though very terse for a tool with two undocumented parameters.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The tag format is covered, but the limit parameter, result ordering, and pagination behavior are absent, leaving the definition only minimally adequate for a search tool.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the 'tag' parameter's accepted format (with or without leading '#'), which is genuinely useful, but the 'limit' parameter (default 20) is left completely unexplained.
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?
States a specific verb (search) and resource (notes) with the filter criterion (containing a tag), so an agent immediately knows the operation. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling search_query, leaving the tag-vs-general-query distinction to inference.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer this over search_query or notes_read, and no stated prerequisites. The tag filter implies a use case but nothing routes the agent between alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.