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 'flag clusters' but doesn't explain what 'flag' means operationally (e.g., does it create markers, return a list, trigger notifications?), nor does it cover permissions, side effects, or error handling. For a tool with no 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 core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying the action, target, and condition concisely, making it easy to grasp quickly.

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 (involving note clustering and synthesis detection) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., a list of clusters, a summary report), how it identifies references, or any limitations (e.g., performance with large vaults). For a tool with no structured data beyond the input schema, more context is needed.

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 ('minClusterSize' and 'vaultPath') with descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how 'minClusterSize' affects clustering logic or what format 'vaultPath' expects. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Flag clusters of notes that reference each other but lack a synthesis/summary note.' It specifies the action (flag), the target (clusters of notes with mutual references), and the condition (lack of synthesis). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'pattern_echo' or 'contextual_companions' which might have overlapping functionality with note relationships.

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 prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing vault with linked notes), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'search_notes' or 'get_backlinks' that might help identify note relationships. Usage is implied from the purpose but not explicitly stated.

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