Locate Obsidian notes that reference a specific Jira issue key such as ABC-123. Search your local vault by ticket key to find related project notes and context.
The notes that contain a Jira key, for example ABC-123.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It identifies the filter condition but does not disclose read-only status, match semantics (exact/substring/case), permissions, pagination, or return 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 one sentence with no filler and includes a useful example. However, it reads as a sentence fragment without an explicit verb, so it is concise but not perfectly front-loaded.
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?
For a simple one-parameter finder, the description adequately conveys the high-level result: notes containing a Jira key. With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, it still omits matching behavior and result completeness, leaving important gaps.
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%, so the description must compensate for the single key parameter. It adds meaningful format context by naming it a Jira key and giving ABC-123 as an example, but it does not clarify matching exactness, case sensitivity, or other constraints.
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 resource (notes) and the filtering condition (contains a Jira key), with a concrete example ABC-123. It is clear what the tool retrieves, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as search or open_note.
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 gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no alternatives, and no exclusions. The Jira key example implies the expected input, but it does not help the agent choose this tool over search or other siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.