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 effectively communicates that this is a read-only operation ('without reading its content'), describes what information is returned, and clarifies it's for metadata/statistics only. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions.

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, returns) and every sentence adds value. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by practical guidance, and concludes with return details. No wasted words or redundant information.

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 excellent context about what the tool does, when to use it, and what it returns. The 'Returns' section effectively documents the output structure. The main gap is the lack of explicit behavioral constraints (like rate limits or permissions), but overall it's quite complete for this complexity level.

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 schema description coverage is 50% (only the 'path' parameter has a description), but the description compensates by providing context about what the 'path' parameter represents ('Path to the note to analyze') and includes examples in the schema. The 'ctx' parameter remains undocumented, but the description's overall clarity about the tool's purpose helps contextualize parameter usage.

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 ('get metadata and statistics') and resource ('about a note'), explicitly distinguishing it from sibling tools like read_note and search tools by emphasizing it doesn't read content. The first sentence provides a concise, accurate summary of the tool's function.

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 includes explicit 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections that provide clear guidance on appropriate contexts and name specific alternative tools (read_note, search tools, update tools). This gives the agent precise direction on when to select this tool versus its siblings.

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