Obsidian MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing performance characteristics ('Fast for small vaults', 'May take several seconds for large vaults') and return format information ('All notes linking to the target with optional context'). It doesn't mention authentication needs or rate limits, but provides useful operational 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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, when to use, when not to use, performance note, returns) and each sentence adds value. It could be slightly more concise by combining some usage scenarios, but overall it's efficiently organized and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good context about performance, usage scenarios, and return format. It covers the essential behavioral aspects and distinguishes from alternatives. The main gap is lack of output structure details, but given the tool's relative simplicity, the description is reasonably complete.

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 75%, and the description doesn't add significant parameter information beyond what's in the schema. The 'Returns' section mentions 'optional context' which relates to the include_context parameter, but doesn't explain the 'ctx' parameter or add meaningful semantics beyond the schema's descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the decent schema coverage.

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 a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('all notes that link to a specific note'), and explicitly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_outgoing_links and find_broken_links. The opening sentence 'Find all notes that link to a specific note (backlinks)' is precise and unambiguous.

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' and 'When NOT to use' sections with clear alternatives named (get_outgoing_links, find_broken_links, search_notes). It gives specific scenarios for usage and explicitly tells the agent when to choose other tools instead.

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