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 synchronization but does not detail whether this is a read-only or mutating operation, what permissions are required, potential side effects (e.g., data modification), or error handling. The description lacks critical behavioral traits, leaving gaps in understanding how the tool operates.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with a clear main sentence followed by a parameter explanation. There is no wasted text, and the structure efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and parameter usage in a few lines, making it easy to scan and understand.

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?

Given the tool has one parameter and an output schema (which should cover return values), the description is moderately complete. It explains the parameter's semantics but lacks behavioral details and usage guidelines. For a synchronization tool with no annotations, more context on how it interacts with the vault and registry would improve completeness, but the presence of an output schema mitigates some gaps.

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?

The description adds meaningful context for the single parameter 'actualizar,' explaining that if True, it attempts to update the statistics table in the registry file. This clarifies the parameter's purpose beyond the schema's basic boolean type and default value, compensating for the 0% schema description coverage by providing actionable 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 states the tool 'synchronizes tag usage in the vault with the official registry,' which provides a general purpose but lacks specificity about what synchronization entails (e.g., reconciling differences, updating metadata). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on tag synchronization, but the verb 'synchronizes' is somewhat vague without detailing the action's scope or outcome.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description mentions synchronization but does not specify triggers, prerequisites, or compare it to sibling tools like 'obtener_lista_etiquetas' or 'obtener_tags_canonicas.' Usage is implied for tag management tasks, but without clear context or exclusions.

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