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 mentions the search criteria ('links, keywords, and recency') but omits critical details like whether this is a read-only operation, how results are ranked, if there are rate limits, or what the output format looks like. For a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, this is insufficient.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core functionality without unnecessary words. It directly states what the tool does and the criteria used, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, output format, and usage context, which are essential for an AI agent to invoke it correctly. The high schema coverage helps with parameters, but overall guidance is inadequate.

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 input schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by implying that 'notePath' and 'topic' are optional anchors for the search, but it does not provide additional semantics beyond what the schema specifies. This meets the baseline for high 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: 'Suggest adjacent notes related to a topic or seed note based on links, keywords, and recency.' It specifies the verb ('Suggest'), resource ('adjacent notes'), and criteria ('links, keywords, and recency'), making the function understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_notes' or 'get_backlinks', which prevents a score of 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions parameters like 'notePath' and 'topic' but does not specify scenarios or exclusions, such as when to prefer 'search_notes' for broader queries or 'get_backlinks' for link-based retrieval. This lack of contextual direction limits its utility for an AI agent.

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