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 by specifying what it returns ('Notes matching the date criteria with paths and timestamps'), which is crucial for understanding output. However, it lacks details on potential limitations like result ordering, pagination, 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), front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value without redundancy. It efficiently communicates essential information in a compact format.

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 (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides good contextual completeness. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, and return values, which is sufficient for a search tool. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from more detail on the return structure (e.g., format of 'paths and timestamps').

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 75%, with three parameters well-documented (date_type, days_ago, operator) and one (ctx) lacking description. The tool description doesn't add parameter details beyond the schema, but since coverage is high and the undocumented 'ctx' parameter appears to be a common context parameter (implied by its name and null default), the description is adequate. A baseline of 3 is adjusted upward due to the high schema coverage compensating for the description's lack of parameter elaboration.

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 'Search for notes by creation or modification date,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'search_notes' (for content-based search) and 'search_by_property_tool' or 'search_by_regex_tool' by focusing exclusively on date-based filtering.

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, providing clear guidance on appropriate scenarios (e.g., finding recently modified notes) and alternatives (e.g., using 'search_notes' for content-based search). This directly addresses sibling tool differentiation and usage context.

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