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 states the tool creates a new note, implying a write operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether it overwrites existing files, requires specific permissions, handles errors (e.g., invalid paths), or returns any confirmation. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 purpose ('Create a new note') and adds a key detail ('with frontmatter and content'). There is no wasted verbiage or redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 (a write operation with 5 parameters) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'frontmatter' entails (e.g., metadata like tags or title), how the note is saved, or what happens on success/failure. For a creation tool in a note-taking context, more behavioral and output context is needed.

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?

The description mentions 'frontmatter and content', which loosely relates to parameters like 'title' and 'content', but doesn't add meaningful details beyond the schema. With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly (e.g., 'notePath' as path relative to vault root). The description provides minimal extra value, meeting 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 action ('Create') and resource ('a new note'), specifying it includes 'frontmatter and content'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'append_to_note' (which modifies existing notes) and 'update_note_section' (which updates parts of notes). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'write_note' (which might be similar), keeping it from a perfect score.

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 doesn't mention when to choose 'create_note' over 'write_note' or 'append_to_note', nor does it specify prerequisites like needing an existing vault. This lack of contextual direction leaves the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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