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 states the action ('Search for text') but doesn't mention critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, how results are returned (e.g., pagination, format), or potential rate limits. This is a significant gap for a search tool with multiple 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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundancy. It's front-loaded and wastes no words, making it easy for an agent 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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the search returns (e.g., file names, snippets, match counts), how results are structured, or any behavioral nuances. This leaves the agent with incomplete context for effective use.

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 doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema, which has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all 6 parameters. This meets the baseline score of 3, as the schema adequately documents the inputs without needing extra explanation in the description.

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 'Search for text in vault files' clearly states the verb ('Search') and resource ('text in vault files'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_files' or 'get_file' which might also involve file operations, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 'list_files' for browsing or 'get_file' for retrieving specific files. It lacks any mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual recommendations, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the name alone.

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