mcp-obsidian

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic operation. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like error handling (e.g., if the note lacks frontmatter or the path is invalid), performance characteristics, or any side effects. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that parses structured data.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a concise parameter explanation. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 moderate complexity (parsing YAML), no annotations, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose and parameter semantics but lacks behavioral details like error cases, which would enhance completeness for a parsing operation.

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 description adds meaningful context for the single parameter 'path' by specifying it's a 'Relative path to the note,' which clarifies its format beyond the schema's generic 'string' type. With 0% schema description coverage, this compensates well, though it could mention path conventions or examples.

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 specific action ('Parse and return') and resource ('YAML frontmatter of a note as key-value pairs'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like read_note (which reads full content) or update_frontmatter (which modifies frontmatter). It precisely defines the tool's scope.

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 implies usage context by specifying it works on notes with YAML frontmatter, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like read_note (for full content) or get_note_stats (for metadata). It provides clear prerequisites but lacks explicit comparison to siblings.

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