Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• list_notesA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior4/5

  Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'Solo lectura' (read-only), notes recursive behavior, and explains that hidden folders like .obsidian are ignored. This discloses key safety and operational traits, though it could additionally mention return format or performance considerations.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is three concise sentences with essential information front-loaded. Each sentence adds value: purpose, optional parameter behavior, and key behavioral notes (ignores hidden folders, read-only). No wasted words.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter context, read-only safety, and hidden-folder handling. The return value (list of notes) is implicit in the verb 'Lista', so the description is sufficiently complete.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, and the parameter 'folder' is already well-documented in the schema. The description restates the subfolder restriction ('restringe a una subcarpeta relativa') without adding new meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description uses a specific verb ('Lista'), specifies the resource (notas .md de la boveda de Obsidian), and adds scope details ('recursivamente', optional subfolder). It clearly distinguishes from siblings, which read or search, by focusing on listing.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description gives clear context on how to use the tool (recursive listing, optional subfolder, ignores hidden folders) but does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over sibling tools like search_vault. Usage is implied rather than explicitly contrasted with alternatives.

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

• read_noteA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

  Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'Solo lectura' (read-only), which is a key behavioral trait ensuring safety. It also implies the return is the note content, though it doesn't detail error handling or formatting. This is adequate for a simple read tool.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is two short sentences with no redundant words. It front-loads the main action, gives a concrete example, and ends with a clear read-only note. Every sentence earns its place.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a one-parameter read operation with no output schema, the description is complete. It specifies the input semantics, gives an example, and clarifies the read-only behavior. No additional context is needed for successful use.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema coverage is 100%: the single 'path' parameter already has a description in the schema. The tool description repeats the relative-path semantics and adds an example, but this adds little beyond the structured field. Baseline 3 applies because the schema fully documents the parameter.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states a specific verb+resource: 'Lee el contenido de una nota Markdown' (reads the content of a Markdown note). It also clarifies the path is relative to the vault root, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_notes and search_vault by focusing on direct content retrieval.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides clear context: it specifies the path format with an example ('Proyectos/idea.md') and states it is relative to the vault root. While it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion scenarios, the read-only nature and path guidance make the intended usage obvious.

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

• search_vaultA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

  Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

  The description discloses that the search is case-insensitive, returns matches with note:line locations, and is read-only ('Solo lectura'). With no annotations provided, these details are essential for safe invocation.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is compact, two sentences, and front-loads the primary action. It covers essential behavioral traits without tangential information.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  The tool has simple parameters and no output schema, but the description adequately explains the return format and search scope. It provides enough context for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The input schema already documents both parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds valuable context for the query parameter by specifying case-insensitivity and the .md scope, which the schema alone does not convey.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description explicitly states the verb 'Busca' (searches), targets '.md' notes in the vault, and specifies the return of matches with location (note:line). This clearly differentiates from sibling tools read_note and list_notes.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description defines the tool's scope (searching .md notes) and its read-only nature, implying it should be used when finding content across notes rather than reading a specific note or listing notes. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions.

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