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 what the tool does (extract/analyze embedded images), specifies the return format (List of Image objects), and mentions that Claude can analyze/describe them. It doesn't cover error conditions, performance characteristics, or memory implications of image processing, but provides solid core behavioral information.

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, returns). Each sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy. The front-loaded purpose statement immediately communicates the tool's function.

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?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good contextual completeness. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, what it returns, and distinguishes it from alternatives. The main gap is lack of explicit mention of the 'max_width' parameter's memory-saving purpose, but overall it's quite comprehensive given the structured data limitations.

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?

With 50% schema description coverage, the description doesn't mention any parameters directly. However, the schema provides good documentation for the 4 parameters, including clear descriptions and examples for 'path' and 'image_index'. The description doesn't add parameter-specific context beyond what's implied by the tool's purpose, meeting the baseline for moderate schema coverage.

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 verbs ('extract and analyze') and resources ('images embedded in a note'), distinguishing it from siblings like read_note (text only) and read_image (standalone files). The first sentence provides a concise, accurate summary of 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 includes explicit 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections with named alternatives (read_image, read_note). This provides clear guidance on when this tool is appropriate versus when to use sibling tools, covering both inclusion and exclusion criteria.

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