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 describes the tool's behavior: it's a read operation (implied by 'Read'), returns content and metadata with specific details (tags, aliases, frontmatter), preserves image references without loading them, and includes proactive user interaction guidance for handling images. It covers key aspects like output format and user interaction patterns, though it doesn't mention error handling or permissions.

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 ('When to use,' 'When NOT to use,' 'Returns,' 'IMPORTANT'), making it easy to scan. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, with each sentence adding value (e.g., usage scenarios, output details, user interaction advice). However, the 'IMPORTANT' section is somewhat verbose and could be more concise.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is highly complete. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral details (including output format and image handling), and proactive user interaction. It effectively compensates for the lack of annotations and output schema, providing all necessary context for an AI agent to use the tool correctly.

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 50% (only 'path' has a description, 'ctx' does not). The description adds no explicit parameter information beyond what's in the schema, but it implicitly clarifies the tool's focus on a single note via 'specific note,' which aligns with the 'path' parameter. Since there are only 2 parameters and the schema covers the critical 'path' parameter well, the description compensates adequately without redundancy, though it doesn't address the undocumented 'ctx' parameter.

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 as 'Read the content and metadata of a specific note,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings like 'search_notes' (for multiple notes), 'get_note_info' (for metadata only), and 'view_note_images' (for images), providing clear differentiation.

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 with specific scenarios and named alternatives. It provides clear guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'search_notes,' 'get_note_info,' and 'view_note_images,' including efficiency considerations and workflow advice (e.g., 'ALWAYS before updating a note').

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