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 explaining what the tool returns ('All outgoing links with their types and optional validity status') and the optional validity checking behavior. It doesn't mention performance characteristics, rate limits, or authentication needs, but covers core functionality adequately.

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, returns), front-loaded with the core functionality, and every sentence adds value. 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 read-only tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does an excellent job covering purpose, usage guidelines, and return values. The main gap is the lack of output format details (structure of returned links), but given the tool's relative simplicity and clear behavioral description, it's mostly 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 67% (2 of 3 parameters have descriptions). The description adds value by explaining the purpose of validity checking ('Also check if each linked note actually exists in your vault'), which complements the schema. However, it doesn't provide additional context for the 'path' parameter beyond what's in the schema.

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 specific action ('List all links') and resource ('from a specific note'), with explicit differentiation from sibling tools like get_backlinks and find_broken_links. The title 'outgoing links' reinforces the directional nature of the operation.

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 (understanding references, checking dependencies, exploring structure, validating links) and 'When NOT to use' cases with named alternatives (get_backlinks for inbound links, find_broken_links for cross-note searches). This gives comprehensive guidance on tool selection.

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