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 key behaviors: default search mode (both filenames and content), ranking logic (filename matches ranked higher), search modes with prefixes, hierarchical tag support, and return format (results with scores, match_type). It doesn't mention performance characteristics like rate limits or authentication needs, but covers most operational aspects well.

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 (default behavior, when to use, search modes, examples, when not to use, returns) and uses bullet points for readability. While comprehensive, some sections could be more concise (e.g., the examples are detailed but necessary). Every sentence adds value, but the overall length is substantial though justified by the tool's complexity.

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 is highly complete. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral details, parameter semantics through examples, and return format. The lack of output schema is compensated by explicitly describing the response structure (results with scores, match_type). No significant gaps remain for effective tool selection and invocation.

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 75%, so the schema already documents most parameters well. The description adds valuable context beyond the schema: it explains the query parameter's default behavior (searches both filenames and content), provides multiple search mode examples with prefixes, and clarifies tag hierarchy support. However, it doesn't add meaningful information about the other parameters (context_length, max_results, ctx) beyond what's in their schema descriptions.

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 searches for notes by filename or content with smart ranking. It specifies the verb 'search' and resource 'notes', distinguishing it from siblings like list_notes (listing all notes) and search_by_date (searching by date). The opening sentence is specific and immediately communicates the core functionality.

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 guidance on when to use this tool (e.g., finding notes by name, content, tags, folders, properties) and when NOT to use it (e.g., searching by date, listing all notes, reading a specific note with exact path). It names specific alternative tools (search_by_date, list_notes, read_note) for excluded use cases, offering clear decision boundaries.

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