NOUZ 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. It successfully discloses the return structure (metadata + content) which compensates partially for the missing output schema, but fails to mention error handling (e.g., file not found), side effects, or permission requirements.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the verb, zero redundant words. Every word earns its place by conveying domain (Obsidian), action (Read), and return structure (metadata + content).

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?

Adequate for a simple single-parameter tool, as it partially describes the return value (critical given no output schema). However, the complete lack of parameter documentation and absence of error behavior keeps it from being fully complete.

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 coverage is 0% (path parameter undocumented in schema). The description mentions reading a 'file' but does not explain the `path` parameter's expected format, whether it should be relative/absolute, or provide an example. Insufficient compensation for the schema gap.

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?

Clearly states the action (Read) and resource (Obsidian file), and specifies the scope includes metadata (YAML frontmatter + content). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like `list_files` or `write_file`.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., `list_files` for directory listings or `get_children` for relationship queries). No prerequisites or exclusion criteria are mentioned.

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