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 what the tool does (identify notes with tasks) but lacks details on behavioral traits such as permissions needed, whether it modifies data, rate limits, or what the output looks like (e.g., format, error handling). For a tool with no annotations, 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 without unnecessary words. It clearly communicates the tool's intent in a concise manner, making it easy to understand at a glance. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying key elements like 'initiative-tagged notes' and 'outstanding tasks.'

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 information on behavioral aspects, output format, and usage context relative to siblings. While concise, it doesn't provide enough detail for an agent to fully understand how to invoke and interpret results, especially without annotations or output schema.

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 fully documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema—it doesn't explain parameter interactions, defaults, or usage examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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: to identify initiative-tagged notes with outstanding tasks. It specifies the resource (notes) and the filtering criteria (initiative-tagged, with outstanding tasks). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'search_notes' or 'query_vault' that might also find notes, though the focus on tasks and system gaps provides some implicit distinction.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'so nothing slips between systems,' which implies a use case for cross-system tracking, but doesn't name specific sibling tools or scenarios where other tools might be more appropriate. Without clear when/when-not instructions, usage is ambiguous.

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