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. It effectively discloses key behavioral traits: it's a read-only search tool (implied by 'search'), supports various property types and operators, handles legacy migrations, and returns notes with values displayed. However, it lacks details on rate limits, error handling, or pagination, preventing a perfect score.

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, property types, when not to use, examples, returns), each sentence adds value without redundancy. It's appropriately sized for a complex tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 complexity (5 parameters, 60% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, usage, parameters, and return behavior. However, it lacks explicit output details (e.g., format, pagination) and full parameter documentation (e.g., ctx), leaving minor gaps.

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 60%, and the description compensates well by explaining parameter semantics beyond the schema. It clarifies that property_name refers to 'frontmatter property values' and provides examples of usage for property_name, value, and operator (e.g., 'exists' checks presence). However, it doesn't fully address context_length or ctx, leaving some gaps.

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: 'Search for notes by their frontmatter property values.' It specifies the verb ('search'), resource ('notes'), and scope ('frontmatter property values'), distinguishing it from siblings like search_notes_tool (content search) and search_by_date_tool (date-specific).

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 explicitly provides 'When to use' with six specific scenarios (e.g., filtering by metadata, numeric properties, dates) and 'When NOT to use' with three clear exclusions (content search, tag search, path search), naming alternatives like search_notes. This comprehensive guidance helps the agent choose correctly among siblings.

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