Search an Obsidian vault for text and return matching lines with surrounding context, so AI agents can quickly locate relevant notes and understand where matches occur.
Performs full-text vault search returning contextual lines around matches
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| contextLines | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It hints at return shape ('contextual lines around matches') but says nothing about read-only semantics, result truncation (limit defaults to 30, max 100), or ordering — all relevant behavior for a search tool.
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?
A single tight sentence with the core action front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though so terse that information density is low rather than high.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, 0% parameter documentation, and several near-duplicate siblings, the definition leaves too much for the agent to infer. A search tool with pagination limits and a context-window parameter needs more than one clause.
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 0% and all three parameters (query, limit, contextLines) are undocumented in both schema and description. The phrase 'contextual lines' loosely gestures at contextLines, but the query semantics and the limit/truncation behavior are entirely unexplained.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('full-text vault search') plus a distinguishing output trait ('contextual lines around matches'). However, it does nothing to separate itself from the sibling obsidian_search or obsidian_find_notes, which an agent will likely confuse it with.
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?
No when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, despite three plausible sibling competitors (obsidian_search, obsidian_find_notes, obsidian_get_note_context). The agent must guess which search variant to pick.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.