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 adds valuable behavioral context: performance characteristics (fast for <100 notes, slower for large vaults with recursive=True), what it returns (hierarchical structure with paths), and a warning about loading full paths versus just counting. It doesn't contradict any annotations since none exist.

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 notes, returns). Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity and front-loaded with essential 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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description does an excellent job providing context. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, performance characteristics, and return format. The main gap is that it doesn't fully document all parameters, but it provides enough 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?

Schema description coverage is only 33% (1 of 3 parameters described), but the description compensates well. It explains the directory parameter's purpose ('list notes in the vault or a specific directory') and implies recursive behavior in performance notes. While it doesn't detail all parameters explicitly, it provides meaningful context beyond the sparse 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 tool's purpose with specific verb ('List') and resource ('notes in the vault or a specific directory'), distinguishing it from siblings like search_notes or list_folders. It explicitly defines the scope of listing notes versus other 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' and 'When NOT to use' sections with clear alternatives named (search_notes, search_by_property). It gives specific scenarios for usage and exclusions, making it easy to choose between this tool and siblings.

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