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 mentions 'advanced search' techniques but doesn't clarify if this is read-only, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what the output format might be. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding 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 front-loads the key action ('Advanced search') and lists techniques without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and wastes no space, earning a high score for conciseness.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the search returns, how results are structured, or any behavioral traits like performance or limitations. For a tool with 2 parameters and no structured output info, this leaves too much undefined for effective agent use.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('query' and 'vaultPath'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states the tool performs 'advanced search' and mentions techniques like 'link analysis, tag hierarchies, and structural context,' which gives a general sense of purpose. However, it doesn't specify what resource is being searched (e.g., notes, files) or how it differs from sibling tools like 'search_notes' or 'query_vault,' making it somewhat vague rather than clearly distinguishing from alternatives.

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 such as 'search_notes' or 'query_vault.' It lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no clear usage instructions beyond the general 'advanced search' concept.

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