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. It discloses key behavioral traits: it's a mutation tool (implied by 'update'), handles bulk operations, supports specific search criteria, manages frontmatter and tags with deduplication, and includes error handling (shown in the return structure). However, it doesn't mention permissions, rate limits, or irreversible changes, leaving some gaps.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, usage guidelines, search criteria, property operations, examples, exclusions, returns) and every sentence adds value. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently uses bullet points and examples without redundancy.

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 (7 parameters, mutation operations, no annotations, no output schema), the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, usage, parameters, and return values in detail. However, it lacks explicit mention of behavioral risks (e.g., data loss potential) and doesn't explain the 'ctx' parameter, leaving minor 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?

Schema description coverage is low (29%), but the description compensates well by explaining parameter semantics in 'Search criteria options' and 'Property operations' sections. It clarifies the purpose of 'search_criteria', 'property_updates', 'add_tags', 'remove_tags', and 'remove_inline_tags', though it doesn't cover all 7 parameters (e.g., 'ctx' is unexplained).

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 with specific verbs ('batch update properties across multiple notes') and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'update_note_tool' for single-note updates. It explicitly names the resource (notes) and scope (batch operations).

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 explicit 'When to use' scenarios with concrete examples (e.g., archiving projects, bulk tag operations) and a 'When NOT to use' section that names specific alternatives ('use update_note, add_tags, etc.'). This clearly guides the agent on when to choose this tool over siblings.

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