Obsidian 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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return type ('matching file paths') but doesn't describe important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation (implied but not stated), whether it supports fuzzy matching, what happens with invalid queries, whether results are paginated, or any performance characteristics. For a search tool with 7 parameters, this is insufficient behavioral context.

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 extremely concise at just two sentences with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and follows with the return value. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

For a search tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain parameter usage, behavioral constraints, or return format details beyond 'matching file paths'. Given the complexity implied by 7 parameters and the lack of structured documentation elsewhere, the description should provide more context about how to use the tool effectively.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 7 parameters, the description provides no information about any parameters. It doesn't explain what 'vault', 'path', 'limit', 'format', 'total', or 'case' mean, or how they affect the search. The description mentions 'vault' and 'text' search generally but doesn't map these to specific parameters or explain their semantics.

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 tool's purpose: 'Search vault for text' specifies the verb (search) and resource (vault text), and 'Returns matching file paths' clarifies the output. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'obsidian_search_context' or 'obsidian_base_query', which likely have overlapping search functionality.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple search-related siblings (obsidian_search_context, obsidian_base_query, obsidian_tags, etc.), there's no indication of what makes this tool distinct or when it's preferred over others. The description only states what it does, not when to use it.

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