Obsidian MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it 'gets' content, implying a read operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires specific permissions, handles missing notes gracefully, returns structured data or raw text, or has rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 without unnecessary words. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly. There's no redundancy or structural issues.

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 (2 parameters, no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'full content' includes (e.g., metadata, formatting), how errors are handled, or what the return value looks like. For a read operation in a system with many sibling tools, more context is needed to use it effectively.

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 both parameters ('notePath' and 'vaultPath') with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond implying a note is retrieved by path. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting, though no extra context is provided.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('full content of a specific note'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_directories' or 'search_notes' by focusing on retrieving a single note's content. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar read operations like 'query_vault' or 'get_backlinks', preventing 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. With siblings like 'search_notes', 'query_vault', and 'get_backlinks' available, there's no indication of whether this is for retrieving known notes by path versus searching content. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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