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 describes the tool's function but lacks details on behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only or destructive, performance characteristics, error handling, or output format. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage, limiting an agent's ability to predict its behavior.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and criteria, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes essential information, earning a high score for conciseness and structure.

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 doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., list of notes, metadata), how results are formatted, or any behavioral nuances. Without annotations or output schema, the description should provide more context to help an agent use the tool effectively, but it falls short.

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%, with all parameters well-documented in the input schema (e.g., 'hoursBack' as 'Look back window in hours'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how parameters interact or their impact on results. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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: 'Find recently updated notes that lack backlinks or link coverage so you can integrate them.' It specifies the verb ('Find'), resource ('recently updated notes'), and criteria ('lack backlinks or link coverage'). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'audit_recent_notes' or 'synthesis_ready', which might have overlapping functions, preventing 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 implies usage context by mentioning 'recently updated notes' and 'lack backlinks or link coverage,' suggesting it's for identifying notes needing integration. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'audit_recent_notes' or 'get_backlinks,' nor does it specify exclusions or prerequisites, leaving usage somewhat ambiguous.

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