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 output format but doesn't describe important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, performance characteristics, error conditions, or how it handles the optional parameters. The description is too minimal for a tool with 6 parameters.

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 - just one sentence that efficiently communicates the core functionality and output format. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness, as it omits important information about parameters and usage context.

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 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the parameters, doesn't provide usage guidance relative to siblings, and doesn't describe behavioral aspects like whether it's a read operation or has performance considerations. The output format mention is helpful but insufficient.

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 for all 6 parameters, the description provides no information about what any of the parameters mean or how they affect the search. The description doesn't mention 'vault', 'query', 'path', 'limit', 'format', or 'case' parameters at all, leaving the agent with no guidance beyond the parameter names.

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 action ('Search with matching line context') and the output format ('grep-style path:line: text output'), which distinguishes it from generic search tools. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'obsidian_search' tool, which appears to be a similar search function without the line context feature.

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 like 'obsidian_search' or other search-related siblings. There's no mention of specific use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions that would help an agent choose between this and other tools in the server.

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