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 search function but lacks details on behavioral traits such as permissions needed, rate limits, whether it's read-only or destructive, or how results are returned (e.g., format, ordering). This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage, making it minimally transparent.

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 and appropriately sized, with every part contributing to understanding the tool's function, 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 tool's complexity (a search function with 3 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It explains what the tool does but lacks behavioral context and output details. It meets a minimum viable standard but has clear gaps in providing a full understanding for an AI agent.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as examples or usage tips for parameters. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract from the schema's clarity.

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: 'Search for notes that reuse a phrasing, bullet pattern, or framework fragment.' It specifies the verb 'Search' and the resource 'notes,' with a clear scope of finding pattern matches. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_notes' or 'intelligent_search,' which likely have overlapping search 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'search_notes' or 'intelligent_search,' nor does it specify contexts or exclusions for its use. The purpose is clear, but usage context is implied at best, lacking explicit when/when-not instructions.

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