Obsidian MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool 'highlights' findings, implying a read-only operation that returns results, but doesn't specify output format, error handling, or performance aspects like rate limits. For an audit tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. It efficiently communicates the tool's function, making every word count and avoiding redundancy or fluff.

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 (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the purpose well but lacks details on behavioral traits and output expectations. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should do more to explain what the tool returns and how it behaves.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining interactions between parameters or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation effectively.

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 a specific verb ('highlight') and resource ('recently modified notes'), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on auditing for missing frontmatter/structure rather than creation, retrieval, or modification operations. It precisely conveys the tool's unique function within the note management system.

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 implies usage context by mentioning 'recently modified notes' and 'missing required frontmatter or structure,' suggesting it's for quality checks. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_notes' or 'query_vault,' nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is present but not comprehensive.

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